Acer Predator X35 200hz HDR

[AORUS]

I'm still not sold on HDR for PC monitors. I love my HDR TV, but I'm not sat 2ft away from the screen.

Having HDR light up the back of my eyeballs for hours on end is not really something I want. People with sensitive eyes are really going to struggle using HDR monitors.

Monitors still lag some way behind TVs when it comes to new technology like HDR and OLED, To watch HDR the minimum is 1000 cd/m2 nits of brightness, as well as (HDR10) or 12-bit Dolby Vision colour space per channel, it's not worth it now maybe in a few years even then who knows!

 

[Phixsator]

My 1080ti will push the pixels on my X34a at around 80fps, sometimes lower and sometimes hitting the max of 99fps. There would be no point in me upgrading to a 200Hz monitor at the exact same resolution if my GPU can only provide the power to push 80fps.

I would argue from my own personal experience that 90fps at a higher refresh rate(144hz,165hz or whatever else higher) has a better feel to it than 90fps @ 100hz. Heck, I have even disabled Gsync on my 165hz monitor just to run it at capped refresh all the time as I prefer that to let's say 90fps @ 90hz. At least this is what I prefer so I can see a clear advantage to invest in a higher hz monitor even if you cannot push it to the max framerate wise.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

I would argue from my own personal experience that 90fps at a higher refresh rate(144hz,165hz or whatever else higher) has a better feel to it than 90fps @ 100hz. Heck, I have even disabled Gsync on my 165hz monitor just to run it at capped refresh all the time as I prefer that to let's say 90fps @ 90hz. At least this is what I prefer so I can see a clear advantage to invest in a higher hz monitor even if you cannot push it to the max framerate wise.

That makes no sense to me. Why would you disable Gsync in order to run at a capped refresh?

 

[Rikk82]

Surely 90 fps on a 100hz monitor is going to look the same to the user as 90 fps on a 144 hz monitor.

 

[Phixsator]

That makes no sense to me. Why would you disable Gsync in order to run at a capped refresh?

Because Gsync and Freesync cause horrible image persistence once framerate is under a certain threshold. It's not a fault per say of the sync tech but is more related to the nature of how sample and hold displays work. It differs of course from person to person how sensitive you are to image persistence which is why a lot are much more tolerant of it than I am.

Surely 90 fps on a 100hz monitor is going to look the same to the user as 90 fps on a 144 hz monitor.

Actually no. 90 fps at 144hz the tearing is going to be smaller compared to 90fps at 100hz. This is not to be confused with less tearing but the difference between the image above and below the tear line. The smaller the difference the less obnoxious it is, at least to me.

 

[Rikk82]

Well I think I'm going to wait for the X35 to be released. Its only a few more months.
Depending on the price and performance I will get the X35 or an X34P (perhaps the price of the X34P will come down a bit by then).

Slightly concerned about motion blur for gaming on the X35 though - as don't most VA panels have this problem?

 

[JediFragger]

perhaps the price of the X34P will come down a bit by then

The X34P will remain as it is and the X35 will take place in a new price bracket (thought to be £2k ish). Start saving.

 

[Nexus18]

Yup, prices won't come down, monitor prices are still at the very least the same as they were 4+ years ago but more often than not, far more expensive than what they were back then

 

[Combat Fighter]

The X34P will remain as it is and the X35 will take place in a new price bracket (thought to be £2k ish). Start saving.

2k ouch! Lol

I’ll stick with my x34.

 

[Rikk82]

If it does turn out to cost £2k,....gulp!

 

[llamadal]

Well you have a few makes releasing similar spec stuff around the same time, so I don't think we will see them at 2k, i'm expecting 1,200 to 1,500 at most.

Guess we will see in a few months.

 

[JediFragger]

i'm expecting 1,200 to 1,500 at most.

FALD HDR is *not* cheap to produce, and I think it'll whack more than the usual premium on top. They're really going to market these as top-end stuff, and leave the 'normal' Ultrawides for us peasants...

 

[llamadal]

You are right, it's not cheap but I'm hoping they won't gouge too excessively... 2k will put a lot of people off - that's more than doubling the current range.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

£2k will be too much for me, I'd rather go OLED at that price.

 

[Nexus18]

Even £1500 is too much, heck even £1000 is too much......

 

[JediFragger]

2k will put a lot of people off

For the features I think 2k is fairly reasonable, and could last someone 10 years BUT I think I may be too optimistic and they'll be higher. These won't be marketed to the likes of us imo.

 

[hobib_ali]

Does HDR even work on PC?

of course PC has HDR

To implement it just increase the colour and contrast on your monitor and you will have HDR, well somthing like 99% close.

 

[Phixsator]

For the features I think 2k is fairly reasonable, and could last someone 10 years BUT I think I may be too optimistic and they'll be higher. These won't be marketed to the likes of us imo.

doubt they will be more than the new spanking 4k 144hz HDR FALD monitors.. but I wouldn't be surprised if the price was equal or very close.

 

[JediFragger]

doubt they will be more than the new spanking 4k 144hz HDR FALD monitors.. but I wouldn't be surprised if the price was equal or very close.

Yup, that's what I'm going off.

 

[MooMoo444]

If it does turn out to cost £2k,....gulp!

Well they wouldn't sell many at that price so it would be dumb.