Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 29,941
Acer Z35 Predator, due to be released early next year. Gsync and 200Hz (apparantly)
***21.9 Ultrawide Thread***
- Thread starter Nexus18
- Start date
Acer Z35 Predator, due to be released early next year. Gsync and 200Hz (apparantly)
Soldato
Well I have 2 29" LG 2560x1080 @60Hz Ultrawide Monitors , so yeah you can get them
These are what I have without Freesync
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-128-LG&groupid=17&catid=2907
Last edited:
Updated the thread with a new addition:
Madvr now has support for 21.9/zoom control, so it will automatically change the zoom depending on the content, this will be superb for 21.9 films with imax scenes i.e. Nolan's films
I will add this to the OP with suggested settings in the next day or 2.
Madvr now has support for 21.9/zoom control, so it will automatically change the zoom depending on the content, this will be superb for 21.9 films with imax scenes i.e. Nolan's films
I will add this to the OP with suggested settings in the next day or 2.
I have a heard time believing that it is going to be 200hz.. but i would be happy to be proven wrong though
but if it were 200hz expect a heavy premium and on top of that gouging from the retail shops.
I have a heard time believing that it is going to be 200hz.. but i would be happy to be proven wrong though
Why? Acer said so themselves. And price is lower than X34 in most countries.
Only 9990 kr (~1100) in Sweden with coupon @ Cdon.
Good luck finding a GPU that can hit >100fps with most games maxed at 3440x1440 or higher. Let alone at just 1440p.
2560x1080 is fine, same PPI as 27" 1080p so dont see why people so bleh about it. And its not a work monitor, its purely for gaming.
Soldato
because 1080p at 27" is bleh, that's why 
Each to their own but a ppi of 79 is far too low for me. Most people find it to be awful with the benq 35" 2560x1080 screen even in games....
I don't even see the point of 200HZ any way, 144/120HZ is plenty good enough, heck most people can't even tell the difference between 144 and 100 especially with g/free sync.
I don't even see the point of 200HZ any way, 144/120HZ is plenty good enough, heck most people can't even tell the difference between 144 and 100 especially with g/free sync.
Because they likely dont play competitive games. Heck, some people dont notice a difference between 30 and 60.. maybe we should focus more on 30hz monitors?
200hz would provide a lot less blur than 144 if pixel response is fast.
Also 1080p @ 24 vs 27 is just 10 ppi, most people wont notice a difference at a normal sitting distance.
Well if you are a "pro" gamer or CSGO is your main game, fair enough, but I would be willing to bet that even the vast majority of cs:go players wouldn't notice the difference between 120/144hz and 200HZ unless they are ESL level and even then it is a big if.....
Comparing 30-60 is just stupid, same way comparing 60-144 is stupid, like all tech, there comes a cut off point where the difference isn't noticeable for the majority and if people do "notice" a difference, I be willing to bet it is just placebo.
Also, yes refresh rate does play a part in pixel response time but the panel has to actually have proper overdrive etc. otherwise it might actually be worse for motion clarity like previous monitors that have tried to achieve 200HZ i.e. overshoot and in some cases you might even get higher input lag
Comparing 30-60 is just stupid, same way comparing 60-144 is stupid, like all tech, there comes a cut off point where the difference isn't noticeable for the majority and if people do "notice" a difference, I be willing to bet it is just placebo.
Also, yes refresh rate does play a part in pixel response time but the panel has to actually have proper overdrive etc. otherwise it might actually be worse for motion clarity like previous monitors that have tried to achieve 200HZ i.e. overshoot and in some cases you might even get higher input lag
The majority wont notice the difference between 60 and 120.
Blind tests have proven such. As the majority, are casuals.
Anyway Going from 144 to 200 with proper pixel transition, would lead to a better fluidity in motion and sharper image with less need for BBR/ULMB.
Most people cant tell a difference when it comes to soundquality either, a 128kbit MP3 will sound just as good as a 320kbit MP3 to the majority.
Anyway I'd love to hear about that fancy GPU that can push 100fps at 3440x1440.
Going by this forum and many others, I would say most tech savy people (which is a large % of PC gamers) would notice the difference in smoothness/response and more so the motion clarity between 60 and 120.
Well even at 2560x1080 you are going to have a hard time pushing 200 fps in AAA titles.
Well even at 2560x1080 you are going to have a hard time pushing 200 fps in AAA titles.
Yeah maybe because, they're HW enthusiasts. Majority arent.
Then what is the point of 100hz 3440x1440 monitors? Most of them wont be able to push 100fps in 1-2 years from now with settings "maxed" (excl AA)
Most people that I know IRL who are pc gamers are tech savy. The "casuals" that don't notice the difference between 60-120 are the ones that play on consoles hence why they find 30 smooth.
100hz 3440x1440 and 200hz 2560x1080 are just as demanding as each other for single GPU power so there is no point arguing which is better or what the point of them is..... You want more screen real estate space, sharper/clearer image (people use these gaming monitors for work, browsing etc. too) then you go with the 3440x1440 100, if you want better motion/smoothness then you go with 200hz 2560x1080.
Anyway, my original point was that IMO, 2560x1080 is too low for 35" and sacrificing the res. is not worth the extra 100hz, if you disagree with that then fair enough.
100hz 3440x1440 and 200hz 2560x1080 are just as demanding as each other for single GPU power so there is no point arguing which is better or what the point of them is..... You want more screen real estate space, sharper/clearer image (people use these gaming monitors for work, browsing etc. too) then you go with the 3440x1440 100, if you want better motion/smoothness then you go with 200hz 2560x1080.
Anyway, my original point was that IMO, 2560x1080 is too low for 35" and sacrificing the res. is not worth the extra 100hz, if you disagree with that then fair enough.
Soldato
have you used both? I have, there's quite a big difference in sharpness.
I have had a GW2750HM. Was no difference going from 24" to 27" 1080p.
But then again my desk isnt 30cm deep, like some peoples apparently.
Soldato
Well, I moved from a 24" 16:10 1920x1200 to a 27" 1080p BENQ GW2760hs to a 29" 21:9 LG 2560x1080 and the benq was very obviously softer than the other two. my desk is 80cm deep so make of that what you will. I maintain there's an obvious difference when they are side by side and anybody should be able to notice it, really.
Last edited:
Soldato
of course it was, they have all been in the same place on the desk.
no, its a 29", size is measured diagonally. You might mean it has a similar height to a 16:9 23" screen, in which case you'd be right, but it's also 6.7" wider than a 23" 16:9 screen and it has 33% more screen area (physical, not desktop space).
Last edited: