Review Acer Predator X38 175Hz Gaming Monitor Review: Bigger Really Is Better

cknobman

Distinguished
May 2, 2006
968
9
18,985
0
LMAO Acer is smoking crack if they think this monitor is worth $1700!!

Monitor pricing is just stupid these days. Maybe when crap does not sell prices will come back down to sane levels.
 
Reactions: Kridian
Sep 2, 2020
26
7
35
0
LMAO Acer is smoking crack if they think this monitor is worth $1700!!

Monitor pricing is just stupid these days. Maybe when crap does not sell prices will come back down to sane levels.
Yeah you can get a few 34” ultrawides for around 300-400 now , obviously VA panels but is it really 4 times the cost ? The Gigabyte 34 ultrawide is actually pretty damn good for the cost, as long as you get one that has good QC.
 
Sep 2, 2020
26
7
35
0
Yeah i think you can get a 120hz 4k oled for 1299, for this cost Asus should have a no light bleed, dead pixel guarantee
 
Last edited:

waltc3

Prominent
Aug 4, 2019
151
75
660
0
Should have tested with a more mainstream GPU--because a 3090 & this monitor = well over $3,000. Also, I'm not sold on curved monitors at all. It's interesting that quite a few of these widescreen, < 4k monitor reviews of 34" and up do not list dot pitch (sometimes called pixel pitch)-- the number provides the distance between screen pixels, & the lower the better--under .20 is required for 32" 4K monitors, if you don't want to be able to see individual pixels from any distance. My 32" 4K BenQ EW-3270U has pixel pitch/dot pitch of .18 and no individual pixels are observable even 1" away from the screen.) One can only think it is because the dot pitch is less than ideal in these monitors which, given their larger size and lower resolutions (lower than 3840x2160), is understandable from a marketing standpoint, I suppose.

Interesting that I see that Win10 supports a resolution of 3840X1620 on my BenQ--which I would think would also affect aspect ratios, were I to use it (tried it, knocks the 16:9 aspect way off.) Additionally, my BenQ supports something like 360 nits, max, but I can run HDR games set to 1000nits (No Man's Sky supports HDR 400, 600, 1000--you choose) and the HDR 1000 setting for the game looks by far the best. (I was pretty surprised by this, actually.) BG3 has the best HDR implementation in a game I've ever seen. (Game developers are finally beginning to get up to speed with HDR, finally--no more "washed out" fairly ugly appearances.)

Best of all, the 32" 4K HDR 1000 BenQ sells for ~$440. It's a VA panel but as I don't need to view the monitor from anything except a straight-on position, broader viewing angles aren't required. BenQ also offers a newer version, the EW-3280U, which uses IPS instead of VA, for the exact same support--it's ~$700 (Which is close to what the 3270 cost before the 3280 was introduced.)

*It's 60Hz, but that can be easily overcome by turning off vsync so that you can get hundreds of frames per second--without page tearing--which was another surprise with this monitor. All I can figure is that the anti-flicker tech in the monitor also controls page tearing, which I rarely if ever see even though my default driver setting (5700XT) is Vsync off.

Highly recommended if you want a great HDR gaming monitor with plenty of size that won't break the bank:

https://www.amazon.com/BenQ-EW3270U-inch-Monitor-FreeSync/dp/B078HWBGH5/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=benq+ew3270u&qid=1616432901&sr=8-1

--Looks like they've sold out--getting more 3270's on April 13, the page says.

(I seem to be pimping this monitor...;) All I can do is say that if I didn't really like it I'd not have two words to say about it...;))
 
Sep 2, 2020
26
7
35
0
I dont mind the curve, makes it a bit easier to see especially on 21:9, HDR is a mess on windows currently and don’t even bother using it anymore.
 

Blacksad999

Prominent
Jun 28, 2020
34
13
545
1
Any particular reason there aren't comparisons to the very similar LG and Alienware monitors? And no mention of the fact that neither port has the bandwidth to push these monitors to their limits.
I was just coming here to ask the same question myself. lol It seems really odd to leave out the monitors which are direct competitors to this model from the comparison. IIRC, both Alienware and Acer get their panels from LG for the 38" models. Would have been nice to see a side by side breakdown of the strengths of each.
 
Reactions: Tom Sunday

waltc3

Prominent
Aug 4, 2019
151
75
660
0
I dont mind the curve, makes it a bit easier to see especially on 21:9, HDR is a mess on windows currently and don’t even bother using it anymore.
I have three games in which Windows HDR is better than normal mode: 1) BG3/Larian, D3d12 version...best, so far. I won't play the game without HDR, amazingly enough; 2) No Man's Sky, has three HDR modes, 400,600, and 1000. The 1000 mode looks fantastic in HDR--second best HDR title I own, 3) RDR2, looks slightly better in HDR than in normal mode, though it's close. At one time, NMS didn't support HDR at all--but in the last couple of upgrades, HDR has come to the fore--better than without. RDR2 I've seen go through several upgrades--it's still being upgraded--but the current HDR support is very good. And BG3--still in beta form--has been excellent since day1 in HDR--really surprised me. It's only available in the D3d12 version so far--but what a difference building the game engine to support HDR early on makes! These games have turned me from an HDR skeptic to a believer. I play exclusively at 4k, btw.

But all the other games that supposedly support HDR do a terrible job of it, as you mentioned...;) Interesting thing is it has little to do with Windows10 HDR support and everything to do with game engine HDR support. At first--last year--I thought something was wrong with my GPU, my monitor, or both, in relation to HDR. Those three games have taught me better. I'm actually glad to see that it's the game engine that makes the difference, as that means many more games will be built with HDR engines from the start.

I'm running an advanced beta build of Win10 not available to the public (which you can obtain by simply signing on as an Insider's beta tester), and Microsoft is building in a new HDR feature they call "AutoHDR" and the first version is in v2004 b21337.1000, my current build. What it's supposed to do is to take D3d11/12 games that have no HDR support but only support SDR and automatically on the fly convert the SDR values to the appropriate HDR values. You can turn AutoHDR off while keeping Windows10 HDR support turned on if you want, which is certainly the right thing to do. I've sampled several games so far and while the result is still way ahead of the native HDR support in many games today (not my top 3, however), it still needs some work as the SDR-only games still look better with AutoHDR turned off. But it's early, yet, and they intend to get it right.

 

Tom Sunday

Prominent
Jul 24, 2020
28
2
535
0
It seems really odd to leave out the monitors which are direct competitors to this model...both Alienware and Acer get their panels from LG for the 38" models. Would have been nice to see a side by side breakdown of the strengths of each.
Yes you are correct 100%. I am the man on the street and just a looker here and to dream the tech-dream. This said I think that the Alienware AW3821DW most likely has for starters a much better build quality at its current pricing of about $1,425. I am not a lover of Dell but monitors is probably the best thing they have going. I would also wait until "tftcentral" has taken a bite of the Acer Predator X38 apple before dreaming about shelling out $1,700. I just looked at a Asus Z590 Hero VIII posted at $500 and which is not even their top-tier board. The new and upper Intel 11th Gen CPU's are in the $500 league as well. Adding high quality (name brand) fans to a 360mm premium liquid CPU cooler will now cost me close to $500. Our company has not given out raises in the past 2-years and we are told to be lucky in having a job. Enough said!
 
Last edited:

godofsmoke1992

Commendable
Dec 17, 2018
2
0
1,510
0
Why would anyone want this joke? It doesn't even have proper HDR for 1700$? Waste of money when you can get screens which offer more for less
 
Mar 26, 2021
1
0
10
0
(first post here, but long time lurker on the forum, thanks for all the discussion folks)

I actually picked up one of these monitors a couple of weeks ago and am liking it so far. I like to play PvP FPS games and the moar Hz and FPS the better (speed over pretty graphics). IMO these 38 inch ultrawides are the best current compromise for me. While idea of gaming on a 24 inch 360 Hz display is quite intriguing, due to the very low input latency and feel, I would rather lean toward the larger side of the equation. For FPS games, the immersion from the large ultrawide is pretty excellent.

I'd say the Predator x38 is only for certain types of gamers though... So I'm coming from a Predator X27, which is a fantastic 27" 4k display @ 144Hz, 1000 nits HDR, and g-sync - for a lot of general purpose gaming the X27 might be the winner to some folks. To contrast: the x38 has something like 20% fewer pixels, so frame rates are higher there. The pixels are large enough that you can easily see them, which has taken me some getting used to. For the same FOV that I was playing at previously, targets in the center of my display are much larger than they were with the X27, so aiming is a little easier. So yes, the image quality is lower with the x38, but for my use case, the overall experience is better (higher frame rate, larger display).

Other than FPS's, the larger display is excellent for strategy games... for example I love the roguelike T.O.M.E and the pixel density of the X38 is actually a better fit for this game than the X27, as with the X27 and TOME I had to run at 130% scaled up size to be able to see everything large enough anyway. With the X38 I'm running at %100 scale, so everything is bigger and I can see more of the game world.

My ideal display would have similar dimensions to the x38, but would have higher pixel density and refresh rate. But that's the display of the future and I'm gaming today (with a GPU of today also). The G9 (at 200 Hz) does look attractive, but those 49 inches don't fit into my gaming area setup.

BTW it might seem wasteful to upgrade from the X27 to the X38, as they are both terribly expensive monitors. But I have a good home for the X27 and eh this hobby is a lot cheaper than many other hobbies (such as cars).
 

Tom Sunday

Prominent
Jul 24, 2020
28
2
535
0
If they think this monitor is worth $1700!!

Monitor pricing is just stupid these days. Maybe when crap does not sell prices will come back down to sane levels.
The Alienware AW3420DW 34-inch has been seen now on sale for $888. Prices fluctuate almost daily. With that kind of pricing compared to the Acer the 34" Alienware will probably give you a much bigger bang for the buck. Most certainly the technical, the monitor sizing and performance differences between the two is not worth the current pricing demanded by the Acer unit. But I must say that gaming on any monitor in the 34" range is a dream. Of course not too many AAA games are available yet to natively support these bigger monitors. Only about 15% of my Steam collection qualify. When modding older games, the screen stretching is however visable no matter what or one plays with two black-bars on both sides of the game. I also found with friends who own the new 38" Alienware monitor that gaming at 125Hz, 144Hz and 175Hz cannot really be appreciated by the average gamer. At least not by many. So much of this thus appears to be marketing talk. And then there was also the question of "build quality" between all the different bigger monitors.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS