3440x1440 displays

[Migit]

So I'm sure this question has been asked before, but I'm considering updating my monitor to an ultrawide, rather than my current mix and matched duel monitor set up.

Clear choices are the Acer Predator X34 or the Asus PG348Q. But are there other monitors in the category I should consider?

And am I right in believe the difference in these 2 monitors is just the design aesthetics?

If you're factoring price into an arguement for either one, the current prices for them where I am is $1599 for X34 and $1999 for ROG

[Izumi Reina]

5 minutes ago, Migit said:

So I'm sure this question has been asked before, but I'm considering updating my monitor to an ultrawide, rather than my current mix and matched duel monitor set up.

Clear choices are the Acer Predator X34 or the Asus PG348Q. But are there other monitors in the category I should consider?

And am I right in believe the difference in these 2 monitors is just the design aesthetics?

If you're factoring price into an arguement for either one, the current prices for them where I am is $1599 for X34 and $1999 for ROG

Well

Acer Predator X34:

Pros: IPS ('true colour'), I have an IPS monitor looks very good compared to non-IPS

Cons: Not flicker free unlike the ROG SWIFT

 

Asus PG348Q:

Pros: Flicker Free (useful for monitor overclock to lets say 120hz)

Cons: Requires a 980Ti or higher to reach 100hz to be able to overclock the ROG SWIFT to 100hz

So im assuming without a 980Ti the Asus is just a regular 60hz monitor (you can still overclock it though just not to 100hz+)

 

Not many diffrences, I would go for the Acer Predator for IPS, but its not flicker free

The Asus I would go for if you are swimming in money and got a 980Ti lieing around, for non flickering

 

my god basiclly just ignore uptop kinda^^

ok

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Acer: IPS (yay), not flicker-free ('overclock to that 100hz+ might cause flicker (so you might have to lower refresh rate)

Asus: Flick Free (yay), 980Ti required to reach 100hz+ (r.i.p wallet), cost more

 

Out of the two I would go for the Acer (personally) because of IPS (just wanted to say amazing) and lower spec requirements

But the Asus if you got money to burn and want that 100hz no matter what, and is willing to sacrifice money, and IPS

[Migit]

17 minutes ago, AsianvsWhite said:

Well

Acer Predator X34:

Pros: IPS ('true colour'), I have an IPS monitor looks very good compared to non-IPS

Cons: Not flicker free unlike the ROG SWIFT

 

Asus PG348Q:

Pros: Flicker Free (useful for monitor overclock to lets say 120hz)

Cons: Requires a 980Ti or higher to reach 100hz to be able to overclock the ROG SWIFT to 100hz

So im assuming without a 980Ti the Asus is just a regular 60hz monitor (you can still overclock it though just not to 100hz+)

 

Not many diffrences, I would go for the Acer Predator for IPS, but its not flicker free

The Asus I would go for if you are swimming in money and got a 980Ti lieing around, for non flickering

 

my god basiclly just ignore uptop kinda^^

ok

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Acer: IPS (yay), not flicker-free ('overclock to that 100hz+ might cause flicker (so you might have to lower refresh rate)

Asus: Flick Free (yay), 980Ti required to reach 100hz+ (r.i.p wallet), cost more

 

Out of the two I would go for the Acer (personally) because of IPS (just wanted to say amazing) and lower spec requirements

But the Asus if you got money to burn and want that 100hz no matter what, and is willing to sacrifice money, and IPS

I was under the impression the panel was the same, how come the Acer may flicker and can be driven off anything?

And why does the Asus need a 980Ti, I have a 980 not the Ti version though.

 

Hmm but maybe ill go Acer then????

[Izumi Reina]

9 minutes ago, Migit said:

I was under the impression the panel was the same, how come the Acer may flicker and can be driven off anything?

And why does the Asus need a 980Ti, I have a 980 not the Ti version though.

 

Hmm but maybe ill go Acer then????

Well the acer can be 'driven off anything' but its just like the Asus basiclly you can get an overclock with hz but it depends if your graphics card can handle that resolution and frame rate to reach the monitors hz, a GTX980 should be fine for both I wouldnt mind to much about the Asus '980ti+' since recommend specs are usually shot up (so you buy a better card) or just plain off.

 

But the good thing about the Asus is the non-flicker so if you do get to a hz that your monitor does support lets say 120hz miracioulously the GTX 980 might may have some flickering on the acer (I overclock my monitor to 75hz and its annoying). The ASUS will be able to maintain that 120hz with no flickering while the acer you might have to bring it down to 100hz so it wont flicker.

 

Acer: IPS, cheaper

Asus: Non-flicker (may support a bit higher hz with no flickering, compared to the acer)

Both: Driven off anything

[Glenwing]

1 hour ago, AsianvsWhite said:

Well the acer can be 'driven off anything' but its just like the Asus basiclly you can get an overclock with hz but it depends if your graphics card can handle that resolution and frame rate to reach the monitors hz, a GTX980 should be fine for both I wouldnt mind to much about the Asus '980ti+' since recommend specs are usually shot up (so you buy a better card) or just plain off.

 

But the good thing about the Asus is the non-flicker so if you do get to a hz that your monitor does support lets say 120hz miracioulously the GTX 980 might may have some flickering on the acer (I overclock my monitor to 75hz and its annoying). The ASUS will be able to maintain that 120hz with no flickering while the acer you might have to bring it down to 100hz so it wont flicker.

 

Acer: IPS, cheaper

Asus: Non-flicker (may support a bit higher hz with no flickering, compared to the acer)

Both: Driven off anything

None of what you are saying makes any sense at all. Flicker-free means constant current is used to control the brightness of the backlight rather than PWM. It doesn't have anything to do with the refresh rate of the panel, nothing changes with the backlight control when you overclock the panel. The ASUS isn't absolutely "flicker-free"; it has a flicker-free backlight, meaning it is not possible for the backlight to cause flickering. Having a flicker-free backlight does not make the monitor protected from every possible source of flickering. Like I said, overclocking does not change the backlight operation, so any flickering introduced by overclocking is caused by something else, and having a flicker-free backlight will not prevent it.

 

Secondly, both the ASUS PG348Q and Acer X34 have flicker-free backlights anyway, not just the ASUS. So it's really a moot point.

 

Monitor overclocking has nothing to do with the GPU's computational power either, I don't see any reason why a GTX 980 Ti would categorically overclock a monitor better than a 980 would. As with overclocking in other areas, monitor overclocking is not guaranteed and results will vary unit-by-unit. Maybe there's some large controlled test I missed, but it sounds as though you're basing your information on very circumstantial results and single examples, like you saw one 980 Ti overclock better than a 980, or you saw one PG348Q overclock better than your X34, and you're assuming that those results will happen every time.

 

[Migit]

8 minutes ago, Glenwing said:

None of what you are saying makes any sense at all. Flicker-free means constant current is used to control the brightness of the backlight rather than PWM. It doesn't have anything to do with the refresh rate of the panel, nothing changes with the backlight control when you overclock the panel. The ASUS isn't absolutely "flicker-free"; it has a flicker-free backlight, meaning it is not possible for the backlight to cause flickering. Having a flicker-free backlight does not make the monitor protected from every possible source of flickering. Like I said, overclocking does not change the backlight operation, so any flickering introduced by overclocking is caused by something else, and having a flicker-free backlight will not prevent it.

 

Secondly, both the ASUS PG348Q and Acer X34 have flicker-free backlights anyway, not just the ASUS. So it's really a moot point.

 

Monitor overclocking has nothing to do with the GPU's computational power either, I don't see any reason why a GTX 980 Ti would categorically overclock a monitor better than a 980 would. As with overclocking in other areas, monitor overclocking is not guaranteed and results will vary unit-by-unit. Maybe there's some large controlled test I missed, but it sounds as though you're basing your information on very circumstantial results and single examples, like you saw one 980 Ti overclock better than a 980, or you saw one PG348Q overclock better than your X34, and you're assuming that those results will happen every time.

 

I haven't looked into it much, but on the actual Asus page for the monitor is says "Note: For smoother gameplay, G-Sync requires a GeForce GTX 980Ti and above to overclock the refresh rate up to 100Hz"

 

But I can't find a similar note on the Acer page.

 

However as you say, I didn't think GPU would effect monitor overclocking, other than being able to produce that many FPS

[Glenwing]

2 minutes ago, Migit said:

I haven't looked into it much, but on the actual Asus page for the monitor is says "Note: For smoother gameplay, G-Sync requires a GeForce GTX 980Ti and above to overclock the refresh rate up to 100Hz"

 

But I can't find a similar note on the Acer page.

 

However as you say, I didn't think GPU would effect monitor overclocking, other than being able to produce that many FPS

It's only a recommendation, just poorly worded. They're basically saying a GTX 980 Ti or above is "required" to get the best experience with a 100 Hz refresh rate (i.e. in order to benefit from 100 Hz you need a powerful graphics card), but it's not actually a hard requirement.

 

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_rog_swift_pg348q.htm

 

Quote

One of the most interesting features of the PG348Q is the overclockable refresh rate. The panel itself is designed to run at 60Hz by LG.Display and that's the native refresh rate you will be able to select in Windows when you first connect the screen. However, there is a specific feature available in the OSD menu in the 'over clocking' section as shown above. This allows you to enable the higher refresh rate support.

[...]

We had no issues with selecting and running the screen at any of these refresh rates from our tests system, using an NVIDIA GTX 750 graphics card. All of them worked fine in Windows with no visible artefacts or flickering.

[...]

With an NVIDIA GTX 980 card we found no issues with running the screen at any refresh rate between 60 and 100Hz. The image was stable and there was no flicker or coil whine. Thankfully with this card we saw no frame skipping at any refresh rate, all the way up to the maximum 100Hz. Asus recommend a high end NVIDIA card for use with this screen so this is perhaps not surprising, but something to keep in mind.

 

[Migit]

7 hours ago, Glenwing said:

It's only a recommendation, just poorly worded. They're basically saying a GTX 980 Ti or above is "required" to get the best experience with a 100 Hz refresh rate (i.e. in order to benefit from 100 Hz you need a powerful graphics card), but it's not actually a hard requirement.

 

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_rog_swift_pg348q.htm

 

 

Thanks, so really it's just a choice of design and price by the sound of it

[Krzych]

First of all two monitors you mentioned are of terrible quality, has tons of issues and zero quality control (check out those models forum threads on overclock.net or somewhere to learn more). If you have any respect for yourself as a customer and for your hard earned money, you won't find acceptable unit. I'd rather suggest looking at some quality professional aimed monitors. Some of them even have some gaming features for secondary addition, like 75 Hz resfresh rate or FreeSync, like LG 34UC88/98, both of them with crystal clear opinion on quality so far, so this is much more convenient and reasonable way to go. 34UC98 have $1599 suggested price in Australia from what I know, and 34UC88 should be even cheaper. Getting quality screen and changing GPU later is much easier and more comfortable way to go than trying to win a lottery with faulty monitors where maybe 1 out of 100 units can be accepted by customer who respect himself.

[Migit]

1 hour ago, Krzych said:

First of all two monitors you mentioned are of terrible quality, has tons of issues and zero quality control (check out those models forum threads on overclock.net or somewhere to learn more). If you have any respect for yourself as a customer and for your hard earned money, you won't find acceptable unit. I'd rather suggest looking at some quality professional aimed monitors. Some of them even have some gaming features for secondary addition, like 75 Hz resfresh rate or FreeSync, like LG 34UC88/98, both of them with crystal clear opinion on quality so far, so this is much more convenient and reasonable way to go. 34UC98 have $1599 suggested price in Australia from what I know, and 34UC88 should be even cheaper. Getting quality screen and changing GPU later is much easier and more comfortable way to go than trying to win a lottery with faulty monitors where maybe 1 out of 100 units can be accepted by customer who respect himself.

I was under the impression that the newer X34's had fixed a lot of the issues that were present on initial release.

And I haven't seen many reviews at all on the PG348Q.

Ill have a look at the LG monitors though, thanks

[Krzych]

6 hours ago, Migit said:

I was under the impression that the newer X34's had fixed a lot of the issues that were present on initial release.

And I haven't seen many reviews at all on the PG348Q.

Ill have a look at the LG monitors though, thanks

Just look around different tech forums, there are some threads about PG348Q where people share their experience, post photos and etc. There is enough info to make you stay away if you don' want to pay $1500 for faulty product. And no, newer X34 models didn't fix issues, look at X34 owner club on overclock.net, there are a few examples of 2016 manufactured X34s with the same issues as before like extreme backlight bleed, scanlines, flickering after setting 100 Hz and etc, you know them if you are considering getting X34, or at least you should.

[SuppaTenshi]

Well there aren't exactly a LOT of choices when it comes to monitors with 3440x1440 resolution, let alone ones that have 120hz or more. Although both acer and asus offerings were released long after the DisplayPort 1.3 was implemented, they chose to make their monitors support only up to DP 1.2, therefore making it impossible to get to 120hz and the odd overclocking to 100hz. For this day and age, these monitors should've had native 120hz at that resolution. I've been looking forward to a 21:9 monitor for what it seems to be forever, and I suppose I will continue to wait.

 

Though rumor has it that Samsung will release 3440x1440 at 144hz sometime this year, although apparently with VA panel. Let's see how that works out.

[Krzych]

Samsung 3440x1440 144Hz panels are meant for Q4 if I remember well, production will start in Q3. There is not much info about them, only very basic. But like someone above mentioned, they are going to use VA panel that proved to be quite poor on current Samsung 34" display, having a lot of sharpness problems and color banding, getting totally edged out by any IPS, so there are some serious concerns. 

 

3440x1440 market is expensive, faulty and limited, surely not friendly to customer. I was able to find suitable display of good quality, after returning few others I finally got acceptable one, but I am good with 75 Hz and don't feel any need for more, this makes things easier. 

[Glenwing]

4 hours ago, SuppaTenshi said:

Well there aren't exactly a LOT of choices when it comes to monitors with 3440x1440 resolution, let alone ones that have 120hz or more. Although both acer and asus offerings were released long after the DisplayPort 1.3 was implemented, they chose to make their monitors support only up to DP 1.2, therefore making it impossible to get to 120hz and the odd overclocking to 100hz. For this day and age, these monitors should've had native 120hz at that resolution. I've been looking forward to a 21:9 monitor for what it seems to be forever, and I suppose I will continue to wait.

I'm not sure what you mean. DisplayPort 1.2 can support 3440×1440 at 120 Hz.

[WaitDontSh00t]

I have the Acer x34, I got it not too long ago. I absolutely love it!

[jasonvp]

20 hours ago, Glenwing said:

I'm not sure what you mean. DisplayPort 1.2 can support 3440×1440 at 120 Hz.

Sincere question: are we talking 24-bits per pixel or 32-bits?  I thought that even with 24-bit color, each pixel was represented by 32-bits (8 bits of "other" data).  That may be false though.  However, if it's true, then no, DP1.2 can't support 3440x1440 @120Hz.  It can support that rez/refresh if it's only 24-bits per pixel.

 

3440 x 1440 x 120 x 24 = 14Gbps - which falls within DP1.2's bandwidth

3440 x 1440 x 120 x 32 = 19Gbps - which doesn't.

[Glenwing]

4 minutes ago, jasonvp said:

Sincere question: are we talking 24-bits per pixel or 32-bits?  I thought that even with 24-bit color, each pixel was represented by 32-bits (8 bits of "other" data).  That may be false though.  However, if it's true, then no, DP1.2 can't support 3440x1440 @120Hz.  It can support that rez/refresh if it's only 24-bits per pixel.

 

3440 x 1440 x 120 x 24 = 14Gbps - which falls within DP1.2's bandwidth

3440 x 1440 x 120 x 32 = 19Gbps - which doesn't.

With 32-bit color the extra 8 bits is alpha channel, for transparency. This is used in software and by the operating system for graphical effects and such, but from the graphics card the final rendered image is 24-bit. If you do some quick calculations, if graphics cards actually sent images to the display in 32-bit color then 4K 60Hz would be outside the limits of HDMI 2.0, but it isn't.