2560x1080 is the perfect resolution for most people who aren't gaming on absolute top-end hardware. My GTX 1060 runs absolutely everything at it just fine, with some room even for supersampling. I would certainly imagine that higher ultrawide resolutions would require real compromises with mainstream hardware.
Approximately eight plus years ago. I bought a Gateway 30 inch monitor. In those days it was hard to find a popular brand that made monitors that large. In my opinion it has taken a number of years for more companies to add 30" monitors to their inventories. It has been comparatively easy to purchase 24" and 27" monitors for years. As those sizes have become more popular, the prices have dropped consistently.
In the past month, I purchased a Dell UP3216Q, directly from Dell for $1399.00,
( down from $1700.00 ) before tax and shipping. That model is a 32" monitor with
maximum resolution of 3840x2160 at 60hz. Aside from the Gateway 30", I have purchased a Dell 30" monitor, ( which died after about 4+ years ), and an HP 30" monitor ( which is along side my 32" as I write this ). I am certainly not wealthy, and don't play a lot of FPS games, ( I prefer real world simulations like Steel Beast Pro Armored vehicle/combined arms ). I have always enjoyed working, and playing, using my large monitors.
Lastly, I have to wonder at the calculations folks have used in this forum. Regarding the price of monitors like the Acer Predator Z301C. They have mentioned things like base price, plus the estimated cost of including various features. That is all well and good, but I don't think they have factored in a couple of intangibles. Companies maximizing their profit margin on any item. Also, the consumer base for large monitors is still rather small. People like Day Traders that use monitors in their businesses, and gamers. Are at this time, the only people that are willing to purchase anything that costs more than the current offerings of 24" and 27" monitors. So.., the scarcer an item is, the more it's going to cost. This has always been true of niche products.
Show me a curved 34" 3440x1440p, IPS, G-sync, 100 fps monitor that isn't plagued with defects like the Predator X34, or has cheesy styling like the Asus p348q, and I'll take it. Oh, And I want it for a $1000.
So glad to see a manufacturer stepping away from the 4k fad. My friend and I couldn't tell a difference on a 32" monitor at normal gaming distance, so why make monitors with that level of resolution other than marketing? 4K stinks for gaming on any rig without $1200+ in graphics cards. 2560x1080 is GREAT. I only wish it were 2560 x 1200.
Price is reasonable for all of what's being provided tho as was pointed out in the article, when ya get fps high enough the value of ULMB can be somewhat diminished. 4k resolutions remains a non-option as a) No high refresh rate options exist at this time (and won't until the HDR IPS 144 Hz panels from AU Optronics drop later this month). and b) no GFX card exists that can drive it at the frame rates described here. As for the curve thing, I have yet to see a screen that doesn't look washed out compared tot he AU Optronics IPS panels.
I really don't get discussions about "size" when not in context with resolution. If you have normal vision and sit at typical viewing distances, if you drop much below 96 ppi, the image will appear grainy.
@ 1080p, 23" = 96 ppi OK
@ 1080p, 24" = 92 ppi OK
@ 1080p, 27" = 83 ppi NG
@ 1440p, 27" = 109 ppi OK
@ 1440p, 30" = 98 ppi OK
@ 1440p, 33" = 89 ppi NG
Unfortunately, if you want to drive 144Hz monitor at speeds that make it a sensible purchase, unless Vega turns out to deliver more than we've seen so far, you are left w/ only 1 GFX card vendor. AMD still doesn't have a horse in the race in this niche. In addition, Freesync has no Motion Blur Reduction. With reference to the G-Sync tax reference above, that tax covers the cost of the hardware module which provides ULMB that is not found in Freesync monitors. Now some monitor manufacturerss do offer their own MBR hardware modules which provide motion blur reduction technology but to call that a Freesync tax is simply wrong just as it is with nVidia cause the increase is primarily associated with the hardware module, not the sync technology in both cases.
Would like to have learned more about the Tobii Eye-Tracking technology and how it compares in from and function to long established options like Track IR Pro ($170 w? headset attachment)
$799 on amazon
-$155 TrackIR pro
-$150 MBR Reduction (ULMB) Hardware Module
-$125 AMVA Panel
1440p IPS 144 Hz AU Optronics panels still provide the best image experience while gaming and still cost $700 so at $799 this isn't a big jump for those attracted by the curved screen. Later this month, the 4k option will finally become a alternative which provides an better gaming / image experience than is currently available when Asus and Acer drop their new HDR 144 Hz 4k screens. But I think it will take a year (possibly more) for the price to drop and and at this point in time, you need twin 1080 Tis to suitably drive them.