Even if it had 200hz support I would not want that pile of **** on my desk!
A little harsh
Acer Predator XR341CK/X34 34" Curved Gaming Screens with FreeSync and G-sync
- Thread starter Vega
- Start date
A little harsh
It isn't just their monitors that have poor QC though, pretty much everything of theirs especially laptops suffer because of poor QC and their customer service will likely be no different, you could get a great one but what happens when you are past the 14 days and something were to happen, you then have to deal with them 
Of course there will be people out there who have had a good experience with their products but you hear and read of far more complaints, much like for LG's 21.9 34" screens when it comes to back light bleed.
Of course there will be people out there who have had a good experience with their products but you hear and read of far more complaints, much like for LG's 21.9 34" screens when it comes to back light bleed.
Associate
The pricing of that monitor seems that you are paying a premium for the 21:9, as well as a premium for 1440p, as well as the GSync, as well as the curve, as well as the 1.7x refresh rate. When you add all those up it gets a little bit silly, and £970 for a monitor is a bit silly in my opinion.
Yes I do understand that those technologies cost money, and it seems to be a very 'well rounded' monitor for those that want the best of all worlds... Maybe that's who it's aimed for, and not me.
Yes I do understand that those technologies cost money, and it seems to be a very 'well rounded' monitor for those that want the best of all worlds... Maybe that's who it's aimed for, and not me.
Is that rumoured pricing for the freesync version cause if so then the gsync version will cost at least £150 more, possibly an extra £200 with it having a 100HZ refresh rate.....
Gsync really needs to die a quick death imo, so glad that only acer and asus seem semi-interested in it, at least for now....
Gsync really needs to die a quick death imo, so glad that only acer and asus seem semi-interested in it, at least for now....
Associate
Nah, that's the rumoured (and pre-order from various retailers) price of the GSync version.
Given Nvidia's utter dominance in the GPU field, why would G-Sync be going anywhere? Is it really that bad? I hear mostly good things, although have not used it myself. Freesync always seems to come off worse head to head, so I don't see that swooping in to replace G-Sync anytime soon, not to mention the certainty that Nvidia would fight tooth and nail against that ever happening anyway. The sticking point seems to be the fact they charge the manufacturer a not insignificant sum for it, which means we the consumer end up paying more of course. But push come to shove, Nvidia could certainly afford to lower this cost or even eliminate it altogether if they want G-Sync to proliferate, which will certainly be their long term plan.
Last edited:
No doubt the tech is great but it is utterly stupid us being tied to a certain GPU and monitor all because of that, I have held of purchasing a new GPU and monitor purely because of that. It is bad enough already having to be tied to a certain GPU brand because of certain games and I would much rather leave all the proprietary stuff to the games rather than it playing a part in monitor decisions.
There is no reason why nvidia can't support "adaptive sync", of course certain GPU's of theirs lack the hardware for that but I think all the 9xx and newer will have support and can't imagine most of the current 7xx and before users sticking with those GPU's for another year anyway.
Freesync is just as good as gsync as long as the monitor manufacturer uses a good scaler i.e. the benq and acer TN panels, the range goes from 40-144HZ. Gsync allowing for an extra 25HZ is the first thing that I have seen to really differentiate it from freesync, although whether that will actually provide any advantage remains to be seen...
I personally don't think the sync tech. is worth an extra £150 and I am someone who hates screen tearing + frame drops to <50 fps
I also imagine that the monitor manufacturers won't like this sync divide either, which along with the price of gsync and lack of additional connection types could be why there is very little interest in it.
There is no reason why nvidia can't support "adaptive sync", of course certain GPU's of theirs lack the hardware for that but I think all the 9xx and newer will have support and can't imagine most of the current 7xx and before users sticking with those GPU's for another year anyway.
Freesync is just as good as gsync as long as the monitor manufacturer uses a good scaler i.e. the benq and acer TN panels, the range goes from 40-144HZ. Gsync allowing for an extra 25HZ is the first thing that I have seen to really differentiate it from freesync, although whether that will actually provide any advantage remains to be seen...
I personally don't think the sync tech. is worth an extra £150 and I am someone who hates screen tearing + frame drops to <50 fps
I also imagine that the monitor manufacturers won't like this sync divide either, which along with the price of gsync and lack of additional connection types could be why there is very little interest in it.
Associate
This is exactly how I feel, as Linus said, soon we'll have to choose our chairs based on what GPU we own..
I think the technology sounds awesome, but the premium, on top of the premium for a specific type of monitor if you are in to bells and whistles, is a bit high.
The fact G Sync gets nothing but praise in terms of functionality isn't helping my decision.
Personally I think gsync will become a very niche thing, much like their 3d stuff, gsync has been out for a lot longer than freesync (iirc over a year) and according to ocuk, we have:
- 10 freesync monitors
- 7 gsync monitors
And the freesync choice is a lot better in terms of brands, type of screen i.e. 4k, 21.9, 144hz, IPS & TN. According to badass, we might be getting a benq version of the asus freesync 144HZ IPS 27" 1440 screen too.
EDIT:
TBH, I wouldn't be surprised if we start to see gsync modules being sold separately, like nvidia originally planned. It would certainly be a lot better that way.
- 10 freesync monitors
- 7 gsync monitors
And the freesync choice is a lot better in terms of brands, type of screen i.e. 4k, 21.9, 144hz, IPS & TN. According to badass, we might be getting a benq version of the asus freesync 144HZ IPS 27" 1440 screen too.
EDIT:
TBH, I wouldn't be surprised if we start to see gsync modules being sold separately, like nvidia originally planned. It would certainly be a lot better that way.
Last edited:
Associate
I'd love for the module to be sold separately. I could buy any monitor I wanted, then in a few weeks, or months, when I can afford to spare the extra £200, buy it.
I am not a fan of having to buy everything in one go, or in this case, as a singular item.
I am not a fan of having to buy everything in one go, or in this case, as a singular item.
Well the fact G-Sync is technically superior to Freesync doesn't seem to be in dispute, so it seems harsh to hope that it "die a quick death", because it's pretty damn good from all I've heard. What you're basically saying is that you don't like Nvidia's business model, which is fair enough.
The fact Freesync is FREE at the point of origin vs the costly G-Sync module, means inevitably we will see more Freesync monitors coming through. It's just easier to produce them. It still seems to be playing catch up in terms of performance though, albeit close.
For those firmly in the Nvidia camp however, with no intention of ever switching to the red team, these Freesync monitors aren't remotely on their radar. Assuming it's possible to add G-Sync to ANY monitor (is it, I don't know?), and also assuming it's not going to be a technical hindrance for people, then yes I can see the logic here... but only if literally ANY monitor could offer both Freesync AND G-Sync, giving customers totally unrestricted choice across the board.
I don't see the current situation changing though. My guess is that we'll just see more dual monitor releases satisfying both camps. Only if at some point in the future both technologies can unite somehow, forming G-Frinky-Sync will the landscape change.
In what way is it "superior" though?
They both do the exact same job and no one would be able to tell the difference between say the likes of the benq 144hz and rog swift in terms of smoothness and input lag, at least they would have an extremely hard time trying to anyway, iirc badass did an article on g vs free sync and he said outside of the testing etc. the differences are so minor that it isn't worth worrying about. When within the ranges, of course gsync will feel better at sub 40 since it can go down to 30fps but, if people are hitting FPS that low then they have other things to worry about.
The freesync range limitations isn't down to "freesync" but the scaler, that is why we have various freesync monitors with different ranges, I'm sure this will improve with time, of course it might bump the price of the monitors though
The only issue freesync had when launched was the response time/overdrive setting not working when freesync was active but that was fixed long ago in AMD drivers etc.
Like I said, gsync allowing an extra 25HZ over the freesync version is the only thing that I have seen that really separates the two along with:
- gsync monitors are limited to just 1 connection i.e. display port where as freesync have various connections to use
- gsync monitors have ULBM
IIRC, future versions of free and g sync are said to have:
- freesync will work with HDMI
- gsync will come with more ports although iirc, only 1 HDMI for now
And to be honest, freesync is just a certification slapped on, adaptive sync will always be the favoured way since it is now essentially a part of the display port standard.
With only really ASUS and acer bringing gsync monitors out, I just don't get the impression that it will be around for long in its current form. I am 90% certain that nvidia were originally planning on just selling the module separately to customers, someone will need to confirm, if that was indeed their plan then I would be curious as to why they didn't go down that path....
They both do the exact same job and no one would be able to tell the difference between say the likes of the benq 144hz and rog swift in terms of smoothness and input lag, at least they would have an extremely hard time trying to anyway, iirc badass did an article on g vs free sync and he said outside of the testing etc. the differences are so minor that it isn't worth worrying about. When within the ranges, of course gsync will feel better at sub 40 since it can go down to 30fps but, if people are hitting FPS that low then they have other things to worry about.
The freesync range limitations isn't down to "freesync" but the scaler, that is why we have various freesync monitors with different ranges, I'm sure this will improve with time, of course it might bump the price of the monitors though
The only issue freesync had when launched was the response time/overdrive setting not working when freesync was active but that was fixed long ago in AMD drivers etc.
Like I said, gsync allowing an extra 25HZ over the freesync version is the only thing that I have seen that really separates the two along with:
- gsync monitors are limited to just 1 connection i.e. display port where as freesync have various connections to use
- gsync monitors have ULBM
IIRC, future versions of free and g sync are said to have:
- freesync will work with HDMI
- gsync will come with more ports although iirc, only 1 HDMI for now
And to be honest, freesync is just a certification slapped on, adaptive sync will always be the favoured way since it is now essentially a part of the display port standard.
With only really ASUS and acer bringing gsync monitors out, I just don't get the impression that it will be around for long in its current form. I am 90% certain that nvidia were originally planning on just selling the module separately to customers, someone will need to confirm, if that was indeed their plan then I would be curious as to why they didn't go down that path....
Well you've kind of answered your own question there... I didn't say it was night and day, but does still have the edge in certain areas such as the operating range and ULMB, as you point out. I totally agree that for most gamers in an average gaming scenario, they probably wouldn't notice the difference, but facts are facts. We will have to see how things pan out for G-Sync in the future, and if its days are numbered or not. I certainly don't think technical superiority has any say on that matter, and as you suggest it may take the path of least resistance and we'll see Freesync (or a version of it) win out... I don't think that's in any way imminent though. Time will tell.
Last edited:
G-Sync is superior. Hence why the G-Sync version is 100 Hz and the Freesync 75 Hz. G-Sync module can be tailored to the specific panel and you can eliminate/minimize ghosting. Something you can't do with Freesync.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Nov 2014
- Posts
- 246
Last edited:
Associate
Stop it! You're making me want to spend ludicrous amounts of money on a monitor!
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Nov 2014
- Posts
- 246
Hey, there's nothing bad being in the 1% and spending like the 1% of the 1% to play videogames. Unless you're in the 99% 
Last edited:
Soldato
Unfortunately, what he said
Not that tripe again. That article has highlighted one thing and one thing only, and it is nothing to do with FreeSync specifically; slow pixel responsiveness. The original revision of the XL2370Z had no effective pixel overdrive (AMA) when FreeSync was enabled. That has now been corrected. The LG 34UM67 uses a relatively sluggish IPS panel so will obviously not show the same pixel performance in a static capture like that. The method of capture also bears little relevance to what the eye actually sees, for which pursuit photography is far superior.
The differences between FreeSync and G-SYNC that are relevant to this specific thread will be cost, GPU compatibility, feature differences (ports vs. ULMB and possibly 3D Vision) and 75Hz vs. 100Hz.