38" Acer 3840x1600 w/ Freesync - Looks Sexy!

[Elfear]

Anandtech just posted an article about Acer's new 38" curved beast.

Specs:

37.5"
3840x1600
Freesync
75Hz refresh rate
IPS panel (meh)
8 bit + FRC

Looks like the same panel that LG uses for their 38" monster only it's $400 cheaper.

 

[Bacon1]

Looks awesome, same body/stand as my 34" XR341CK. Just slightly bigger and small resolution bump. Pricey @ $1300 but hopefully will come down. Wish more people made UW monitors as they are amazing. Personally think they are better than 4k since you get better use out of the pixels, its the high price for UW that makes it a hard sell to people.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Anandtech just posted an article about Acer's new 38" curved beast.

Specs:

37.5"
3840x1600
Freesync
75Hz refresh rate
IPS panel (meh)
8 bit + FRC

Looks like the same panel that LG uses for their 38" monster only it's $400 cheaper.

Why "meh" on IPS? IPS is awesome

 

[tamz_msc]

Why "meh" on IPS? IPS is awesome

Probably because of the higher response times? Anyway if I was in the market for a regular ultrawide I wouldn't even touch anything except an IPS panel, even if I have to sacrifice refresh rates and response times.

 

[Headfoot]

Probably because of the higher response times? Anyway if I was in the market for a regular ultrawide I wouldn't even touch anything except an IPS panel, even if I have to sacrifice refresh rates and response times.

I'd do anything but TN on an ultrawide. IPS, VA, OLED, all good. OLED would be best of course.

 

[moonbogg]

Why "meh" on IPS? IPS is awesome

Since IPS has been delivered to gamers and everyone else at a good price (finally), there is now a new trend taking shape. People frequently now bash IPS and claim that the better technology is VA. People frequently now say things like, "If that panel was VA, I'd go for it". Same thing people used to say about TN vs IPS. If it was IPS, they'd go for it. Now that we finally got it, all eyes are on something else, in most cases, VA.
Now there are some VA options becoming available. HP has an amazing looking ultra wide with a VA panel coming out soon, called the Omen X I believe. Mark my words. As soon as VA becomes a little more common, people will need something else to look for. The only thing left is OLED or perhaps one of those fancy versions of IPS that feature HDR capabilities. Point being, as soon as we get something, we no longer want it.

 

[Elfear]

Why "meh" on IPS? IPS is awesome

Black levels mostly. Having tried both, the black levels on a VA panel really are noticeably better. OLED would be even better but it's going to be awhile before we get those.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Since IPS has been delivered to gamers and everyone else at a good price (finally), there is now a new trend taking shape. People frequently now bash IPS and claim that the better technology is VA. People frequently now say things like, "If that panel was VA, I'd go for it". Same thing people used to say about TN vs IPS. If it was IPS, they'd go for it. Now that we finally got it, all eyes are on something else, in most cases, VA.
Now there are some VA options becoming available. HP has an amazing looking ultra wide with a VA panel coming out soon, called the Omen X I believe. Mark my words. As soon as VA becomes a little more common, people will need something else to look for. The only thing left is OLED or perhaps one of those fancy versions of IPS that feature HDR capabilities. Point being, as soon as we get something, we no longer want it.

VA isn't necessarily better than IPS. It has better black levels, but IPS viewing angles and response times tend to be better.

 

[IllogicalGlory]

VA isn't necessarily better than IPS. It has better black levels, but IPS viewing angles and response times tend to be better.

I agree. I've had two VA panels, one a Samsung 2560x1080 and another BenQ 1080p display, and they both suffered from really bad motion blur/ghosting, which was terribly distracting. However, they definitely had better blacks than my second monitor, which is an Acer IPS.

I'd definitely take IPS over VA, unless it was somehow guaranteed that the VA didn't have terrible response times. The monitor lottery really sucks, way worse than the silicon lottery IMO. It doesn't help that adequately thorough monitor reviews are few and far between. Good luck finding any decent information on anything more niche/budget than the very top-end 4K/1440p/Freesync/Gsync displays.

 

[Arachnotronic]

I agree. I've had two VA panels, one a Samsung 2560x1080 and another BenQ 1080p display, and they both suffered from really bad motion blur/ghosting, which was terribly distracting. However, they definitely had better blacks than my second monitor, which is an Acer IPS.

I'd definitely take IPS over VA, unless it was somehow guaranteed that the VA didn't have terrible response times. The monitor lottery really sucks, way worse than the silicon lottery IMO. It doesn't help that adequately thorough monitor reviews are few and far between. Good luck finding any decent information on anything more niche/budget than the very top-end 4K/1440p/Freesync/Gsync displays.

VA's problem is that there is a big range of response times, you can see it in the TFTCentral reviews. Average response times on VA are okay, but the peaks can get really bad. This isn't the case for good, gaming-focused IPS.

 

[Bacon1]

The monitor lottery really sucks, way worse than the silicon lottery IMO. It doesn't help that adequately thorough monitor reviews are few and far between. Good luck finding any decent information on anything more niche/budget than the very top-end 4K/1440p/Freesync/Gsync displays.

Yeah, at least its not like back in the day with true dell monitor lottery that was such bs. Wish we had more sites like TFTCentral.

 

[richaron]

Man that screen looks sexy. Personally I get grumpy at IPS glow, but I don't think I've even used a panel with really bad ghosting either... Being a night owl however, I often crank the brightness down in a dark-ish room and good black levels help with this.

Back in the CRT days I also got grumpy at 60Hz, and I remember how night & day 75Hz was in comparison. I used guerrilla tactics to crank up everyone's refresh, from friends and family to schools and random businesses I visited. The persistent nature of LCDs and more recently flicker free tech' has made this less of an issue, but I still think 75 vs 60Hz on a screen like this would keep me happy for many a year.

 

[Headfoot]

For gaming on VA's I wouldn't get one that was less than 144hz. A high refresh rate is the single biggest factor for ghosting and smoothness. If the panel can handle a high refresh rate it is one of the low ghosting VA panels. Low end VA panels can have pretty awful ghosting.

IMO high refresh rate, high end VA is only outdone by OLED. But it costs a good bit of coin to hit that

 

[thilanliyan]

Isn't ghosting caused by high pixel response time (not low frequency)?
I had an older VA panel with slower response times and I could see noticeable ghosting with it, and then I used one with faster pixel response and it looked much better even while web browsing.

 

[richaron]

Isn't ghosting caused by high pixel response time (not low frequency)?
I had an older VA panel with slower response times and I could see noticeable ghosting with it, and then I used one with faster pixel response and it looked much better even while web browsing.

Yes, you're correct.

But obviously there's a correlation between response times and the maximum frequency a screen can run. For example one would expect a 100Hz monitor (i.e. refresh every 10ms) to have maximum response times less than 10ms.

 

[Headfoot]

Isn't ghosting caused by high pixel response time (not low frequency)?
I had an older VA panel with slower response times and I could see noticeable ghosting with it, and then I used one with faster pixel response and it looked much better even while web browsing.

Yeah, like Richaron says there are multiple factors. Pixel response time is the underlying factor. But they can't sell a 100hz monitor that can't hit 10ms (average) pixel response, because it couldnt meet the 100hz promise. So the biggest factor in ghosting is HZ of the monitor because they can only promise a higher rate if the pixel response (and scaler) can support it. Of course there is some amount of marketing not matching reality here, but for the most part this is generally true and you can rely on fast refresh rate to be your biggest factor on reducing ghosting. Second factor then affecting pixel response is pixel overdrive to counteract ghosting. Some monitors are better than others at this

 

[Piroko]

But obviously there's a correlation between response times and the maximum frequency a screen can run. For example one would expect a 100Hz monitor (i.e. refresh every 10ms) to have maximum response times less than 10ms.

I disagree to some extend. Pixel response time is a property of the panel, refresh rate is a property of the scaler. There's nothing stopping a company from combining a terrible panel with a great scaler or vice versa.
The reason why you see a correlation is because currently there's money to be made with the combination of good scaler + good panel, you can sell those at a premium towards gamers.

But they can't sell a 100hz monitor that can't hit 10ms (average) pixel response, because it couldnt meet the 100hz promise.

Meh, there are enough VA and IPS panels out there that have major issues coming anywhere near the response time that would be needed in some of the more challenging grey-to-grey transitions.
Case in point, here's the first link I clicked at on tftcentral:
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/content/acer_predator_z271.htm#gaming
Without overdrive this panel needs 16ms on average and 35ms worst case despite being a 144 Hz refresh rate monitor (=6.9ms). With overdrive it still needs 8ms on average (!) in the normal mode and while it might hit 6ms in the extreme mode, that amount of overshoot is very visible to the naked eye and off-putting.
edit: my point being, the pixel response time is very much a paper stat in some panels (limited to the strongest overdrive setting with bad overshoot) and not something one would actually see in optimal settings.

 

[richaron]

The reason why you see a correlation is because currently there's money to be made with the combination of good scaler + good panel, you can sell those at a premium towards gamers.

..

Sorry mate, the reason I see a correlation is because of a purely objective and obvious relationship between pixel response time and panel refresh rate. Taking marketing into account, I think you should read my posts more carefully. When I say "one would expect a 100Hz monitor (...) to have maximum response times less than 10ms": I'm not only trying to simplify this situation, I'm also having a not so subtle attack at those companies whom mis-represent their refresh rates.

 

[Piroko]

..

Sorry mate, the reason I see a correlation is because of a purely objective and obvious relationship between pixel response time and panel refresh rate. Taking marketing into account, I think you should read my posts more carefully. When I say "one would expect a 100Hz monitor (...) to have maximum response times less than 10ms": I'm not only trying to simplify this situation, I'm also having a not so subtle attack at those companies whom mis-represent their refresh rates.

Eh, i did miss that sarcasm. Sorry, mate.