Acer Predator Z35 35-inch Curved G-Sync Monitor Review

[sillynilly]

picture_perfect - you aren't correct at the end there mate. Sorry just wrong. Lag has nothing to do with FPS/Hz - that is all the panel. So saying 1/2 the lag is complete BS without knowing what panels you are comparing. Same with blur.

So I guess I am saying I agree with the Hz wars BS you rail against. The start for me is resolution (1440 is my preferred in large format), then lag, then matching a panel's Hz to my rig's output (FPS) with headroom for GPU growth.

Give me a solid IPS at 1440 running 120Hz and I will be happy for the next few years. And like many of you I stopped reading at the spec sheet first page - 1080? NOOOOPE!

 

[toddybody]

This monitor is a horrible value...no other way to put it.

I'm a huge proponent of 60+hz gaming, and a stickler for image quality...but 200Mhz vs 144Hz is indiscernible (I even have a hard time telling the difference between 120 and 144).

The 21:9 screens are cool, ONLY when they feature 1440 vertical pixels. In addition, the 35" screen gives it a DPI lower than a 19" 1440x900. What a joke.

 

[f-14]

"2560x1080" at 35 " in 2016. That's a joke, right?

i've got a 120hz 55" tv at 1080p for $559 a couple years back

tired of this recycled sony induced substandard pixel limitation that was obsolete 2 years before it came out.

quit buying blurays and dvd's it's just propping up the piss poor rigged by design "work only as hard as they want between golf holes executive decision making"

if you boycott 1080p and swarm to 4k+ x 2560 they will not even dare try using a noose on us at gun point to stop every one from destroying that 1980's market.

 

[picture_perfect]

picture_perfect - you aren't correct at the end there mate. Sorry just wrong. Lag has nothing to do with FPS/Hz - that is all the panel. So saying 1/2 the lag is complete BS without knowing what panels you are comparing. Same with blur.

Oh my, You'll have to look up "input lag" and "persistence blur".

It's true, panel processing contributes a lot to input lag except on fast systems.

And this panel does have ULMB but people need to know they are going to need $1000 dual gtx 980s to get the mandatory 120fps with most games. Even that won't be enough honestly. If not, there will be a ton of low fps persistence blur, lag & stutter and things just fall apart. There goes the high resolution and low input lag you paid for. Still great for solitaire though.

If you can spend the money on graphics performance this monitor demands, it's probably a great experience. Otherwise, performance will be much better with a monitor matched to your system.

 

[eklipz330]

why is there being so much crap thrown for the resolution? it's a good resolution for it's purpose. try having a 35" screen with an extremely high resolution and refresh rate. You won't even have the hardware capable of driving it, so what's the point? in the moment of action, you aren't counting pixels.

 

[eklipz330]

ONE thing i cannot seem to overlook is the complaints about 144hz.... seriously? i can't tell anything about 100hz

 

[serendipiti]

It's a little unfair a criticism over the behaviour over 144Hz, when that's an OC "use it at your own risk".
About the criticism on pixel density.... which is the supposed view distance to the monitor ? at 35", 21/9 aspect ratio and curved ? Probably larger than what's usual at 24"... so that you will be able to read your icons captions...
Perhaps a thinner bezel (3 of them on a multimonitor setup is obscene...) and a single solution dual GSync - FreeSync support would be desirable...

 

[ahnilated]

Why do they keep making curved screens! They look horrible and are so limiting in your field of vision. Do they think people are idiots and won't notice this is all a gimmick?

 

[ppalm]

So, about eyestrain.

I have the acer xb27hu 1440p 144hz 27 incher, and have unfortunately been suffering severe eyestrain using it, even with windows DPI scaling at 150%. I'm not sure if it has something to do with gsync, the framerate, or the resolution itself. Either that, or having a 60hz monitor right next to it maybe.

All of these calls for high DPI monitors has me wondering if I'm the only one having trouble with newer displays. On another note, it just occurred to me that I could test specific aspects for eyestrain by turning them off. My gut feeling is that something about the high framerate is related to the fatigue.

 

[ahnilated]

So, about eyestrain.

I have the acer xb27hu 1440p 144hz 27 incher, and have unfortunately been suffering severe eyestrain using it, even with windows DPI scaling at 150%. I'm not sure if it has something to do with gsync, the framerate, or the resolution itself. Either that, or having a 60hz monitor right next to it maybe.

All of these calls for high DPI monitors has me wondering if I'm the only one having trouble with newer displays. On another note, it just occurred to me that I could test specific aspects for eyestrain by turning them off. My gut feeling is that something about the high framerate is related to the fatigue.

Normally if you have a refresh rate around the rate your lights in your room flicker then you could have eye strain. This used to happen a lot with 60Hz refresh rates being the florescent lights refresh at the same right and that is what most companies use. The higher your frequency went from those lights the less eye strain was an issue or something not at 60, 120, 180Hz.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

The thing with G-Sync is that every gamer in Battlefield 4 forums said that they use their monitors without G-Sync when gaming at 144hz, i asked them why and they all replied that it`s a pointless tech at that fps speed.. so practically you pay for G-sync only on the slower games where you can`t reach to fast fps.

No. If you don't "pay for G-Sync", you don't get ULMB.

G-Sync - Gives you G-Sync functionality and the nVidia provided hardware module to provide ULMB
Freesync - Gives you Free-Sync functionality and no hardware module* to provide ULMB

* Some monitor manufacturers do provide Motion Blur Reduction Technology via a hardware module on their Freesyc monitors but quality and capabilities vary from manufacturer to manufacturer. AMD's response to G-Sync, was to provide a cheaper alternative to G-Sync and they did so be leaving out the MBR technology which provided ULMB.

Also "when gaming at 144 Hz". is misleading. When using a 144 Hz monitor you are not "gaming at 144 Hz, you are gaming at the fps that you card(s) are capable of providing. Playing BF4 at 2560 x 1440 with a 980 Ti, "you are gaming" at about 75 fps.... about 60 fps w/ GTAV ... 42 in Witcher 3 ... 102 fps in BF3

G-Sync would be the best choice for GTAV (60 fps) and Witcher 3 (42 fps) as G-Sync's strength is from 30 - 60 fps
For BF4 you are at the upper range (75 fps) where G-Sync shows noticeable improvement, but ULMB at this point and up will usually provide a better experience. With BF3 (100+ fps) however ULMB setting should deliver the best experience. For more on the subject, see the review below.

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/acer_predator_z35.htm



One large factor being ignored here about why "this monitor" is that with 144 Hz panels, it makes IPS / AMVA work for gaming. You just don't see manufacturers investing in this panel technology to any extent at 144 hz and 1080p. Until the Acer Predator (XB270HU) came along, I could never recommend IPS for gaming. However with the lag on these fast panels now reduced to well within the acceptable gaming range, there's no denying the improved image quality. The cost of the panel combined with the speed just pushes the cost up to a level that would be a hard sell at 1080p. Without the lag stigma at 144 Hz, AMVA / IPS panels are the now "desired" panel types as gamers can now enjoy the better image quality. With flat 1440p panels hovering between $700 and $800, for someone looking for a new experience the price jump is not that insurmountable. Let's remember, your not even looking at this category unless you have already spent $600 or more just on GFX card(s).

What I am seeing is that the "I'm still in high school / college w/ a part time job" builds are still TN 144 Hz but the "I'm outta college, got my 1st job, 'soon will have my own place' guys" are buying IPS.. most fall into the twin 970s @ 2560 x 1440 to twin 980 Tis w/ 3400 x 1440 980 range.

 

[photonboy]

GSYNC pointless at 144Hz?

Yes and no.
First of all, this assumes that you can output at LEAST 144FPS all of the time which is highly unlikely. If you run 144Hz VSYNC On then any time you drop below 144FPS you'll get stuttering (if VSYNC OFF you get screen tearing).

If you are absolutely over 144FPS all of the time then GSYNC won't even be running anyway so yes, in this case it is "pointless."

That's also one game of course. Personally I'd like the ability to set a Global Cap in the NVidia Control Panel (AMD offers this in Crimson now) to always stay in asynchronous mode.

(note some games have issues outside of specific frame rates. Like Fallout 4 which on PC needs to maintain a constant 60FPS... for asynchronous monitors I'm not sure how you manually set that cap for F4 only)

 

[zthomas]

Sure is a pretty monitor.. compared to my acer xb27oh.. flat with no curve.. they both share g-sync.. the picture and gaming are excellent.. tons of detail.. and runs sooo smooth.. adding a bit more ..

I haven't touched the setting, nvidia does all the setting when drivers are uploaded.. yeah max settings.. fine by me.. my 980 hums along.. as for speakers I use a powered type with sub called Aperion made in Seattle Wash.. very high end sound.. I hunted high and low for the best puter speaker.. they sound better than headphones.. placed on spiked stands

I read somewhere my Acer g-sync 27 is ultra HD.. like others have said 4K makes no sense on screens smaller than a 50 inch. The Predator had just come out the week I had bought mine.. for around five hundred US.. I am not disappointed and not willing to pay another six hundred for a couple inches wider.. I am still happy with my purchase.

 

[Dyl_]

As someone that literally owns this monitor, and I have had it for a couple months (newegg), I am thrilled with it. But let it be known that my pc is ridiculously powerful. Using this monitor with 200hz on, a 200 frame rate limit on the games I play, along with my pc results is awesome images.

For competitive gaming, the resolution really doesn't matter. Price for me was not an issue and this was the monitor I chose, probably would have bought it for 50% more had that been the price. This monitor does what I want better than any other monitor, it is the only 200hz option out there as of this writing, and the curve is so perfect that I now notice the distortion of flat monitors.

My only issue is that the specific monitor I received needs repair on the speakers, but like I said, competitive gaming, so speakers are a non-issue. With this monitor I am able to run any game with absolutely everything on max settings, while streaming 2560x1080 at 120fps with zero frames dropped, and no visual problems occur under any circumstances. I am aware that the monitor does not help my system perform, but because it has such a high refresh rate, assuming you have the power to back it up this monitor is a dream.

Computer specs: http://i.imgur.com/Uymz44e.png

Proof of display: http://i.imgur.com/IFLweWN.png

 

[Dyl_]

Also, like my comment above shows under my display info, no you do not need sli anything to run this monitor or games on it with things on max. I can run Warframe, Smite, League of legends and Dota simultaneously with all their settings on max, while streaming all of them, at 120fps in the stream, with zero frames dropped, streaming at 2560x1080.

And all it takes is my rig, which has a single graphics card, the 980Ti


[/quote]
What I mean is Hz are fine but only if you have horsepower to back it up. These monitors make it impossible without SLI, All of which helps explains this:

every gamer in Battlefield 4 forums said that they use their monitors without G-Sync when gaming at 144hz, i asked them why and they all replied that it`s a pointless tech at that fps speed..

[/quote]

 

[Dyl_]

Screwed up the quoting thing, just joined this site to clear up the comments. I was trying to quote "Picture Perfect" on his mention of requiring SLI.

 

[picture_perfect]

Well you changed my mind Dyl. I checked the graphics charts and modified my original post. I though this was a 2560 x 1440p monitor but is a much more sane 2560 x 1080. Tom's doesn't mention ULMB works at 80hz also. Cudos Acer!

 

[Dyl_]

I should also mention that the "ULMB" feature is only available when you are at 160hz or lower, with Gsync off. All things considered, for someone who has the cash and favors measurable performance in a competitive sense, this is THE monitor for you. If you want to watch movies, or play aesthetic solo/story games etc then this monitor could not be any less for you. Colors aren't great, angles aren't great, sound isn't great etc, but the things that literally affect your gaming performance are at the absolute top of the market.

Well you changed my mind Dyl. I checked the graphics charts and modified my original post. I though this was a 2560 x 1440p monitor but is a much more sane 2560 x 1080. Tom's doesn't mention ULMB works at 80hz also. Cudos Acer!

 

[therealduckofdeath]

I often wonder how many commenter's on here has actually even got a game on their PC. "This is not >>4k!!1 RRRAAAGE!!".
Had it been 4k+, 200 Hz and Gsync support would have been pretty pointless for the average gamer.

 

[Realist9]

I often wonder how many commenter's on here has actually even got a game on their PC. "This is not >>4k!!1 RRRAAAGE!!".
Had it been 4k+, 200 Hz and Gsync support would have been pretty pointless for the average gamer.

There are so many things wrong in your post...
-The "average gamer" isn't looking for a 35" monitor. Maybe you should look at articles that apply to you?
-I said nothing about 4k. My second post mentions 1440p. Please read more carefully.
-I'm sure the people commenting here, except maybe you, have plenty of games, most of them AAA. Many of them will look like comparative garbage on a 35" at 1080.
-You seem to think anythingx1080 is ok. 5+ years ago, maybe you'd be right. Not today. You sound exactly like the type to play on a small screen, at low res, with low graphic settings because you imagine it helps your leet pew pew skillz.

So please read and comprehend before you comment. Also, maybe stick to articles that apply to your gaming/setup, as a 35" obviously does not.

 

[ManamalGames]

I just purchased this monitor from Amazon and coming from a 24" 1920x1200 monitor the Z35 is pure bliss. Do I wish it was 4K or a high resolution, yes maybe, then I would need to spend more money on 2 new GPUs and deal with SLI problems. Trust me when playing games on this monitor, the last thing you will be complaining about is the resolution. Also, ok it is 1080p, honestly, I love 1080p and I can have all my settings on ultra rather then having to lower them to medium just so I can have decent FPS. You do not need 4K for a 35" monitor, that makes no sense. 1080p is good enough. Please stop talking about 4K and higher resolutions because the majority of the people who game cannot even afford a 4K monitor, not to mention a GPU or 2 to run it properly. 2560x1080p is very good and this is coming from a person who loves 4K technology, but I prefer to run everything in Ultra. In the end, 21:9 on a PC is OMG pure bliss....I just wish Playstation 4 and Xbox One can utilize 21:9 in their games, that is the only thing I would complain about. For me the $1,100 I spent was well worth it. But since I stream PC and both console I may just get the new 4K Acer Predator 32" 16:9 monitor for $1,300...but I love 21:9 gaming. When Acer makes a 35" 4K 21:9 monitor I will buy it, also the new Pascals by Nvidia should be out by then and also Display Port 1.3, which will take gaming beyond 4K....

 

[CaptainTom]

I thought I was crazy but my dream monitor does seem to be on the horizon:

5K OLED 240Hz 21:9


Every month I see a new product that comes closer...

 

[Briolli]

I have this monitor and I love it! I love 21:9 gaming as well! Yes the price could be a little lower, but all in all the monitor is well worth it in my opinion!

 

[Briolli]

I have this monitor and I love it! I love 21:9 gaming as well! Yes the price could be a little lower, but all in all the monitor is well worth it in my opinion!

 

[zthomas]

I have this monitor and I love it! I love 21:9 gaming as well! Yes the price could be a little lower, but all in all the monitor is well worth it in my opinion!

cool.. I got the acer 27.. the 32 came out a week after I bought mine.. really envious of the curve.. haha