***21.9 Ultrawide Thread***

Amraam said:
Oh really? My bad, thought the Acer was the only one out of the two to 'require' an overclock, my bad.
Click to expand...
Yup, same steps/selection as what you have to do with the acer via the monitor OSD.

Can't recall of what luck people are having with actually achieving the 100HZ without any of the flickering, scanlines or/and coil whine issues though, however, I "think" the asus fairs a bit better for this...

The only "native" 100HZ native 34" 1440 displays are the latest VA screens i.e. the aoc agon, HP omen, asus and samsung displays.
 
Don't know why manufacturers are pushing for an even wider format... Utterly stupid imo.


Amraam said:
Interesting. Can't say I noticed any flickering or lines etc on mine, but who knows what the replacement will bring when it arrives tomorrow hopefully.
Click to expand...
I think both have them to some extent (the scanline issues) especially under certain conditions, some are worse than others though. If you don't notice it in normal usage, don't go looking for it otherwise it will bug you in normal usage too! :p
 
nox_uk said:
i'm using this 8ish year old 27" 16:10 TN monitor - i'm actually wondering if i should upgrade as quite frankly i don't want something that's worse. :(
Click to expand...
Well you are in your right to request RMA and if they decline then you can just return under the 14 day CCR law.

But yup, monitor QC is a joke now, 8+ years ago, I went through a ton of monitors and none had any issues at all, zero back light bleed, zero dead pixels.... Only had to RMA one as it had very bad uniformity.
 
Amraam said:
Sadly, you can't just do that. Postage back is up to the customer AND retailers can legally take a percentage off the refund if the box is so much as opened. OCUK didn't allude to how much it would be which is one of the reasons I kept pushing for RMA over 'unwanted item'.
Click to expand...
If you buy through amazon, I'm pretty sure they arrange and cover postage for you.

And yes, I'm pretty sure gibbo has stated that last part too (over which there was a massive back lash) but he said that would only be applicable for the people that are going through the monitors i.e. 3+ returns or something like that.

I definitely wouldn't buy monitors through ocuk again after what they said about yours as well as seeing reports on other forums about their CS regarding this.
 
Amraam said:
Yeah that makes sense. Not fair on retailers if people are abusing the system to get a perfect screen. As you saw though, mine was not good at all and was well within rights for RMA. I am very happy with the service received, but I was very unhappy at first when three people said it's "good and normal for that IPS panel". Doesn't matter if it's "normal"; if it's not to design and not fit for purpose, back it shall go :)
Click to expand...

Yup there are definitely some that are abusing the system and/or not fully understanding the issues or haven't got their monitors at the correct settings but at the same time.... imo, any back light bleed that is noticeable under normal conditions with a normal brightness setting is a "fault" as is any dead pixels, it is not "normal" for any panel type. As I said above, I have bought/seen tons of monitors and 8+ years ago, you never had to worry about such issues, you would have had to be extremely unlucky to get a monitor with back light bleed, at least in my experience anyway.

They sorted you out in the end but unfortunately they tried fobbing you off first time round, to me that isn't on at all, especially for the price you paid.

Had a quick look and found some of gibbo's posts regarding this as well as some stuff about the b-grade stuff:

Gibbo said:
We doubled checked with trading standards and our lawyer, well I made our guys double check as what you mentioned gave me concern.

But we are indeed correct, the law is if an item is clearance/b-grade it should be:
1. Clearly marked as such in the product title so "B-Grade" or "Clearance"
2. Showing a reduced price compared to regular price of good reduction as this is for the reduced warranty period due to being not new.

So if B-grade items were only 5-10% cheaper than new and not marked as such then they would have full warranty.

But as we sell our B-grade typically at huge reductions we are as such covered and we even had a case a few months ago where a customer tried to return a product to use well out of the B-grade 90 day period, was like 18 months later and he took us to court, we won. So when buying clearance/b-grade from anywhere if the reseller is clearly stating it as such and there is a big reduction, by ordering you are agreeing to their terms and they are legally entitled to only offer the warranty they advertise.
Click to expand...

Gibbo said:
Legally the reseller can only deduct upto 25% I believe, so 50% is rather extreme and probably illegal.
Click to expand...

Gibbo said:
Backlight bleed within reason like dead pixels is not a fault, so I guess it depends how they are feeling, LOL. Of course CCR can be used but legally if they believe it is used and cannot be resold they can essentially charge you a restocking fee (upto 25%).

I suspect the monitor price increases at etailers across the board is coming from increased returns on CCR due to backlight bleed, some people have good reason, the bleed is beyond acceptable, others returning for IPS glow and doing it several times over.

We keep CCR restocking charges to an absolute minimum, but it means we end up with a huge amount of B-grade monitors sold a big losses to the company, so we either increase upfront margin to cover it or we start implementing more CCR restocking fees.

On another note we have also applied huge pressure on certain manufacturers to start taking returns on monitors for excessive bleed so the retailer is not the ones getting stung.
Click to expand...

So looks like we found our reason as to why monitors are so expensive, essentially we are paying for companies incompetence for when it comes to QC :o

Makes you wonder just how many people are RMA/returning the monitors to make monitors so much more expensive?!
 
Amraam said:
This is the replacement screen: https://goo.gl/photos/TVfHeTfRBrhthm268

Better, but still there :/
Click to expand...
Far too hard to tell from that photo in all honesty.

If you're using your phone, adjust the exposure or record/upload a video or take a snapshot of the video to upload as an image.

Although the left corner still looks to have bad bleed....

chaparral said:
There most likely pushing even wider monitors to get people that like having the screen space available with two 16:9 monitor setup to replace them with just a single super wide 32:9 monitor..

And the 32:9 ratio looks to be about the exact same width as two 16:9 monitors ;)
Click to expand...
True but most people who had dual monitor setups got rid of them for a single 21.9 monitor :p
 
That looks ok to me, pretty sure the bottom is back light bleed and not IPS glow though? Backlight bleed always has that orange/yellow hue where as IPS glow is just a "glow" i.e. white/light grey look on blacks, at least in my experience anyway.

It is odd how it always seems to be the left side that is the most problematic for bleed and IPS glow issues :/
 
MooMoo444 said:
I think if they invested into fixing issues, the price would shoot up. It's probably costly to scrap a whole panel because of a dead pixel or a little bleed.
Click to expand...

The problem is, prices have already shot up because of the amount of people returning the screens, due to the retailers losing money on CCR/RMA returns:

Gibbo said:
Backlight bleed within reason like dead pixels is not a fault, so I guess it depends how they are feeling, LOL. Of course CCR can be used but legally if they believe it is used and cannot be resold they can essentially charge you a restocking fee (upto 25%).

I suspect the monitor price increases at etailers across the board is coming from increased returns on CCR due to backlight bleed, some people have good reason, the bleed is beyond acceptable, others returning for IPS glow and doing it several times over.

We keep CCR restocking charges to an absolute minimum, but it means we end up with a huge amount of B-grade monitors sold a big losses to the company, so we either increase upfront margin to cover it or we start implementing more CCR restocking fees.

On another note we have also applied huge pressure on certain manufacturers to start taking returns on monitors for excessive bleed so the retailer is not the ones getting stung.
Click to expand...

So we are already paying for monitor manufacturers incompetence :o

Also, back light bleed is mostly always caused by the chassis/surrounding assembly, i.e. usually being too tight so they wouldn't need to scrap the panel, just take it apart and redo the tightening etc. A lot of 34um95 owners did this themselves.
 
Phixsator said:
yeah that is correct but darn man look at that premium and I have a feeling that the VA panel could be better I mean its acer.. they havent had a great track record when using VA panels for gaming . I hope I am wrong of course with the one you linked..

For that price I could get a 3440x1440 curved 75hz freesync capable monitor from LG with a very good IPS panel....that is saying something imho.
Click to expand...

All these high refresh rate VA panels are much the same tbh i.e. overall it is very good, more so if you avoid the 200HZ and stick to 144/120HZ. It will still have problems with the dark to bright area transitions and vice versa.


Regarding price, yup I don't disagree.

Heck I wouldn't even pay more than £500 for a 34" 1440 IPS/VA now, anything more and it is completely and utterly stupid, you're just getting ripped of big time for what is at the end of the day, very basic old LCD based panels that have awful QC/problems.

I imagine gsync is adding a substantial sum to that though.....


I also wouldn't be wanting to go any bigger than 34" 21.9, 29" 21.9 is the perfect size for wideness imo (and combined with a 2560x1080 res. it is pretty sharp still and very easy to run), I think 30-32" 21.9 would be the sweet spot for myself.

I really don't get why there aren't more 29-32" 2560x1080 screens as looking at steam, the res. is more favourable than 3440x1440 atm....

qFgdlPg.png

Of course, steam survey isn't the be all but it does give a good indication for a large majority of the PC gamer base as well as showing growing and declining trends.

I think if we had the bare bones in a 30-32" 2560x1080 21.9 package i.e. no speakers, no HDR, freesync, 75-100HZ, OLED could be added and not budge the price up too much i.e. possibly the screen could be had for <£900? (of course factoring in there being a decent amount of other OLED monitors), for myself, that would easily be the best monitor on the market and actually worth the £500+ price tag imo....
 
blackmonday said:
Is the Acer Predator X34A worth the nearly £1k its selling for?
Click to expand...
IMO not worth anywhere close to that:

- using an extremely old panel now
- complete rip of for a basic old LCD panel that is being pushed to its max to achieve 100HZ and as a result will either have scanline artifact issues under certain conditions as well as coil whine (obviously this is down to your hearing, generally the older you are, the less likely you are to hear it)
- panel lottery with regards to either backlight bleed and/or severe IPS glow issues

Essentially you are paying for gsync tax and 100HZ (of which you might not even get anyway, most have to settle with 80-95HZ)

If you have the room and don't mind 21ms of input lag as well as the lack of gsync, cough up the extra £500 to get a far superior display in every other way i.e. OLED 55" 4k HDR TV
 
Last edited:
4GB is plenty for 2560x1080, at least for now..... However, I would be wanting at least 8GB if you're planning on keeping the card for 2 years.... The only games that demand more than 4GB are a handful i.e. rise of the tomb raider and even then, the difference between very high and high textures is so minimal and not worth the extra 3+GB of VRAM it requires....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom