Acer 35in Ultra-wide Predator XZ350CU Has FreeSync and 144Hz

I wouldn't mind some monitor reviews. There are not a lot of great reviews out there.

 

All i know is that 16:10 is a dying breed and it sucks big time

 

^ yeah not sure why anyone would go for this one when the X34 come in both freesync and gsync respectively. even with the higher frequency it runs at, still not as attractive at all.

 

Is there a monitor with same specs as this, minus the ultra-wide and curve?

 

still waiting on the X34 ultrawide 1440p g-sync....................

 

@kakarot what do you mean by 16:10 ? This monitor is 21:9 and i don't see this as a dying breed any time soon. I have 3 lg 25' 2560x1080p60hz monitors for productivity and i use one bigger lg for gaming 21:9 ....the difference is huge in games it's like going from 4:3 to 16:9 again.

 

Actually it is quite opposite. Perfect monitor should cover maximum area of your field of vision in order to acquire full immerse effect.

Eye can extend field of vision by moving its fixation point up to 60° up, 75° down, 60° towards the nose, and 110° away from the nose. For both eyes the combined visual field is 135° vertical (up + down) and 220° horizontal (right away+left away).

Basically, perfect aspect ratio would be 220°:135° ~= 1.63 ~= 16:10

Any monitor which is not 16:10 will not cover your field of view evenly or display data outside of your field of view - which is not only waste of space and money but waste of any content placed there by the media creators. 21:9 aspect ratio monitors are marketing gimmick abomination and waste of money. All that extra money could be invested more optimally by buying bigger 16:10 or 16:9 monitor with higher resolution in order to improve visual quality inside focus area of the human eye (60° FOV).

Anyway, VR helmets, even in 2D mode, is the future of the gaming. Because you can fit optics and displays into them which will cover full field of vision and double or triple quality/FPS by not wasting so many GPU resources on rendering objects in peripheral vision area. By using eye tracking it would be possible to double or triple perceptual quality again with same GPU resources, because 60% of eye visual cortex is located inside just 10° FOV area (center area of the eye with highest resolution).

 

The curvature is a good thing, you just have to remember that it would be best sitting square on to the monitor.

Before people say that 2560x1080 is pointless, the opposite is true! Because of it being 21:9, you would need a resolution of 3360x1440 for 1440P. How many computers could currently cope with 3360x1440 at say, 144 Hz? If they make the monitor with a higher resolution it would cost more, and associated hardware requirements would be greater. This would greatly limit the marketability of the product meaning a smaller number made. In turn, the cost per unit price would be even higher... and you end up with a stupidly overpriced monitor!

I like that it's a modern VA panel with flicker-free backlight. I would rather have that than a higher resolution with a PWM backlight and crappy TN panel (or even IPS I think is less favourable for gaming IMO than VA).

 

Just a personal preference and no, 21:9 doesn't seem to be going anywhere soon. For example comparing our monitors, 2560x1080 (21:9) and 2560x1600 (16:10), i find the vertical pixel loss and view extremely limited. It's not something I can enjoy using compared to what I am use to

@EJocys, you are talking way over my pay grade

 

tftcentral is really good.

This is a cool monitor but 35" @ 1080p is...not enough.
Min for a 35" 21:9 is 1440p IMO.

 

3360x1440 at 144 fps isn't tenable at the moment...