AOC announces the best Freesync monitor yet?

[Misanthrope]

If it was 29 inches it would be perfect. But the 34 21:9 (which is the equivalent of 27 16:9) at 1080p is a bit low on the DPI. I mean I understand that they wanted to keep the refresh rate high and the cost low but 29" is a perfectly reasonable size for 2560x1080p

[samcool55]

1 minute ago, -BirdiE- said:

I'm entirely with you on the game performance business. Unless you are a professional, you really won't see any noticeable benefit in your play.

i.e. your results in game won't be any better

 

However, in terms of viewing experience... It definitely feels a lot smoother than a 60hz monitor. You'll still die like a scrub, but your death will be super smooth.

True, i think a lot of people like a high refresh rate monitor because it gives a smoother and more pleasant gaming experience.

I really like to play WoT on my 144Hz monitor for example, it has 0 impact on my game (i'm still crap) but i do enjoy the smoothness of it, it's nice

[Belgarathian]

5 hours ago, Prysin said:

-snip-

Sadly not 1440p, but when gaming you wouldn't notice anyway. Kickass monitor otherwise!

[ThreePinkApples]

5 hours ago, Prysin said:

or just 1440 and 200Hz? because DP1.3 supports 1440p 240Hz or something like that

I don't think they can make panels that do that yet, at least not at a price that you would like
I just thought that 1440@100 was, in price, not that different from 1080p@200

[Prysin]

30 minutes ago, aerandir92 said:

I don't think they can make panels that do that yet, at least not at a price that you would like
I just thought that 1440@100 was, in price, not that different from 1080p@200

they CAN make the panels. just like they CAN make TVs that are 0.4mm thick... they just dont do it, because in their opinion the marked isnt ready yet. Which might be true.

[michaelocarroll007]

6 hours ago, alexyy said:

35" ultrawide 1080p **throws up in mouth** I like my PPI in triple figures!

 Yeah Maybe For only gaming with aa turned up  BUT Desktop/Webrowsing would be horrible  i use a 4k 28inch and 4k 40inch for moinitors Love me some High Res 

[Doobeedoo]

Yeah, could've been somewhat cheaper though. Good monitor tho, not fan of ultra wide.

[That Norwegian Guy]

It's cool for what it is and does. It fits a really interesting niche that we didn't have yet. And a range of 30-200 is nice.

 

This is more for the really competitive person (input lag numbers necessary to know though) and not for the person who wants their PPI. Higher resolutions aren't great for competitive play, and the big monitor size isn't necessarily unwanted for those people either.

 

The price is excessive though.

[IAEInferno]

Where's that guy that always claims that the human eye can't see over 60fps?

 

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[Tic-Tac]

1080p on a 35'' is an insult to my wallet.

[bigneo]

17 minutes ago, Tic-Tac said:

1080p on a 35'' is an insult to my wallet.

It's also an insult to people who have a sharp eye. I call them people who can see the difference in resolutions and can see the difference in fps.

Believe you me, I've met people who don't get this at all... I've met people who buy couple 28'' 1080p and doesn't see the difference - are very happy with it. People who say 30fps is the same as 60fps... I think this monitor is designed for those people, not the sharp eye ones.

Unfortunately, for me, this size of the screen has way too low resolution for the monitor, almost as a TV.

[Marine_Boy]

19 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

is this monitor taller than a 1080p monitor? or do you guys really dislike 1080p monitors. because if the height is the same as a 1080p monitor you guys are fine with then its ok and they just need to increase the horizontal pixel count. 1080 is the vertical pixel count. idk quite how to express this. so if a regular 16:9 monitor is the same height as a 21:9 monitor and the 16:9 monitor has 1080 rows of pixels and you are ok with that then the 21:9 monitor having 1080 rows of pixels would be fine also. and pixel density isnt the end all of how good it looks. if the monitor has triple digit pixel density but thats because it has 5000 rows of pixels but 700 columns of pixels it would have high pixel density but probably wouldnt look good

I'm not saying that the picture quality will not be good. What I meant is that if it would be 2560x1440p instead of 2560x1080p it would be better. This looks like a premium tier display so I thought that they might put there more than 1080 pixel rows even if they would have to sacrifice some Hz from refresh rate. I don't think that it would be that big of a problem tho...