Acer Predator X34 Gaming Monitor Review

[Evernessince]

Do Camaro guys say "Maybe if you want that chintzy Corvette look"?
I buy something nice for myself when I land a good job and get labeled chintzy by someone who hasn't read this thread to find out why I paid what I did?


True, but what does this have to do with my comment?
You need to read.

Acer is not the Corvette of the PC world. It's more like the shady 2nd hand used car lot. They sell monitors for cheaper than the other guys and the quality usually follows.

Don't assume that I haven't read this thread or don't know what I'm talking about. I've seen video reviews before this article as well and probably know more about the monitor than you. You should know that aside from backlight bleed, this monitor has quality control issues. Reviewers have reported the two piece panel frame often not being matte and having gaps. Dead pixels and backlight bleed are common.

"You need to read."

From the mouth of the horse? You stated "You gotta pay to play" which I refuted. I'd say that's right on point, you just don't seem to want to defend your point.

You can pay the stupid tax for monitors like this. All other informed buyers will be getting actual high quality panels at a lower price.

 

[dividebyzero]

You can pay the stupid tax for monitors like this. All other informed buyers will be getting actual high quality panels at a lower price.

I actually think you would be very hard pressed to find a monitor offering what Dell does that much cheaper. A lot of other companies don't do much in the way of pre-testing (and few make sure they aren't sending out panels with stuck/bright pixels). Dell's upper tier panels also have a few other advantages, 16:10 aspect ratio, usually class leading colour accuracy & uniformity for non-pro monitors, a ton of connectivity options, and their RMA process is a lot less painful than some other brands I could mention. The only downside would be input lag, but that is generally a trade off for any scalar equipped panel.

 

[amstech]

Acer is not the Corvette of the PC world. It's more like the shady 2nd hand used car lot. They sell monitors for cheaper than the other guys and the quality usually follows.

They aren't the best, but they aren't bad either.

Don't assume that I haven't read this thread or don't know what I'm talking about. I've seen video reviews before this article as well and probably know more about the monitor than you. You should know that aside from backlight bleed, this monitor has quality control issues. Reviewers have reported the two piece panel frame often not being matte and having gaps. Dead pixels and backlight bleed are common.

There are few people on this site that know more about monitors and LCD technology then I do.
Your taking my "Gotta Pay to Play" comment out of context and getting offended.
I am one of the biggest penny pinchers you will come across, and agree that you can get a great panel for cheap. In fact, I am not even talking about the Predator itself, just higher rez panels in general that cost more.
This has nothing to do with my statement about the market 5-6 years ago. I made a statement about apples and your talking about oranges.
As far as this Predator, I am sure it won't be perfect but it looks damn nice and I wouldn't mind one. Is it worth the price their asking? Probably not. I didn't agree with the price on my U3011 when I bought it.

From the mouth of the horse? You stated "You gotta pay to play" which I refuted. I'd say that's right on point, you just don't seem to want to defend your point. You can pay the stupid tax for monitors like this. All other informed buyers will be getting actual high quality panels at a lower price.

I have no intention of engaging in online jabber, you seem to have taken offense to my comment and want to throw shade on a purchase I made 6 years ago when the market was not like it is now. 1600p was tough to come by @ 60Hz, with a 7MS response time. Having a PC to push 1600p properly was also not cheap.
It would be somewhat equivalent to buying a 4K panel now, the statement 'you need to pay to play' stands for many aspects of upper PC gaming.

 

[Evernessince]

I actually think you would be very hard pressed to find a monitor offering what Dell does that much cheaper. A lot of other companies don't do much in the way of pre-testing (and few make sure they aren't sending out panels with stuck/bright pixels). Dell's upper tier panels also have a few other advantages, 16:10 aspect ratio, usually class leading colour accuracy & uniformity for non-pro monitors, a ton of connectivity options, and their RMA process is a lot less painful than some other brands I could mention. The only downside would be input lag, but that is generally a trade off for any scalar equipped panel.

A little bit confused, this article is on an acer monitor. Dell monitors are some of the best around.

They aren't the best, but they aren't bad either.


There are few people on this site that know more about monitors and LCD technology then I do.
Your taking my "Gotta Pay to Play" comment out of context and getting offended.
I am one of the biggest penny pinchers you will come across, and agree that you can get a great panel for cheap. In fact, I am not even talking about the Predator itself, just higher rez panels in general that cost more.
This has nothing to do with my statement about the market 5-6 years ago. I made a statement about apples and your talking about oranges.
As far as this Predator, I am sure it won't be perfect but it looks damn nice and I wouldn't mind one. Is it worth the price their asking? Probably not. I didn't agree with the price on my U3011 when I bought it.


I have no intention of engaging in online jabber, you seem to have taken offense to my comment and want to throw shade on a purchase I made 6 years ago when the market was not like it is now. 1600p was tough to come by @ 60Hz, with a 7MS response time. Having a PC to push 1600p properly was also not cheap.
It would be somewhat equivalent to buying a 4K panel now, the statement 'you need to pay to play' stands for many aspects of upper PC gaming.

Classic flip flop statement. If you cannot defend your own point jump to the other side. All of a sudden your a penny pincher when your original post stated you have to "pay to play" on an article about a very expensive monitor.

"This has nothing to do with my statement about the market 5-6 years ago. "

I don't even know what you are referring to here. I never even mentioned anything about the past market. I'd like to see you quote where I stated anything that was off point. Throwing a smokescreen won't stop people from seeing a dry fish flop.

 

[dividebyzero]

A little bit confused, this article is on an acer monitor. Dell monitors are some of the best around.

The Acer X34 Predator (and the Freesync version, the XR341CK) use the exact same panel as the Dell U3415W ( an LG LM340UW2-SSA1 also used by Asus fwiw) and has the same display characteristics (luminosity, backlight bleed, colour gamut, response time).
The Dell costs less less and has better I/O options, and IMO a better stand and OSD. The Predator costs more, has a much higher (and wider) refresh rate and absolutely kills the Dell in input lag (thanks to the use of G-Sync module over the standard scalar circuitry).

In this case, bearing in mind that the only differences between the Acer X34/XR341CK and the Dell really has nothing to do with the quality of the display, except that the Acer's G-Sync module offers much reduced signal and processing lag ( even the Freesync version beats the Dell in this respect) I found it odd that people would see a gulf between the two vendors.

From the quote that you commented upon, I saw two interpretations - either the Dell U3011 wasn't up to snuff, or that Acer isn't in the same class as Dell. Generally I would support the latter, but as with all monitors, I tend to look at the panel and the circuitry driving the individual model rather than the brand itself - unless the brand has a horrendous QC/QA reputation.

 

[Evernessince]

The Acer X34 Predator (and the Freesync version, the XR341CK) use the exact same panel as the Dell U3415W ( an LG LM340UW2-SSA1 also used by Asus fwiw) and has the same display characteristics (luminosity, backlight bleed, colour gamut, response time).
The Dell costs less less and has better I/O options, and IMO a better stand and OSD. The Predator costs more, has a much higher (and wider) refresh rate and absolutely kills the Dell in input lag (thanks to the use of G-Sync module over the standard scalar circuitry).

In this case, bearing in mind that the only differences between the Acer X34/XR341CK and the Dell really has nothing to do with the quality of the display, except that the Acer's G-Sync module offers much reduced signal and processing lag ( even the Freesync version beats the Dell in this respect) I found it odd that people would see a gulf between the two vendors.

From the quote that you commented upon, I saw two interpretations - either the Dell U3011 wasn't up to snuff, or that Acer isn't in the same class as Dell. Generally I would support the latter, but as with all monitors, I tend to look at the panel and the circuitry driving the individual model rather than the brand itself - unless the brand has a horrendous QC/QA reputation.

Here's my question (and I did not know they shared a panel) - Why is the Acer monitor having more reported issues when compared to the dell? Even a quick look at the x34's product page will tell you quite a bit.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009869

There's definitely something going on that we cannot see just by comparing panels. Perhaps Acer is getting off-grade panels. Backlight bleed and dead pixels would explain this. Acer also won't replace your monitor in case of dead pixels either

http://www.acer.co.in/ac/en/IN/content/dead-pixel

Dell will replace if you find even one.

 

[dividebyzero]

Here's my question (and I did not know they shared a panel) - Why is the Acer monitor having more reported issues when compared to the dell? Even a quick look at the x34's product page will tell you quite a bit.

There was a colour banding issue with the early monitors (both the G-Sync and Freesync variants). Acer fixed the problem with a firmware update, but I'm guessing stock in inventory/in situ wasn't updated. Warranty replacements for affected units was clarified by Acer in October.

Acer also won't replace your monitor in case of dead pixels either. Dell will replace if you find even one.

Actually, Dell's warranty is tiered. I certainly wouldn't dispute that Dell has a premium warranty service - I mentioned as much earlier.
As I said, the panels are the same (Acer/Asus/Dell/LG curved 34") - all W-LED backlight, all with the same comparable backlight bleed, luminosity, and colour reproduction), so visually there isn't a distinction. It is up to the consumer what other attributes they prefer to have. Dell offers a good warranty, good build quality, good I/O options, and good OSD. The input lag isn't good (the Acer is around a third of the Dell) and you won't get the refresh range that the Acer (or the Asus for that matter) has by a substantial margin.

 

[Evernessince]

There was a colour banding issue with the early monitors (both the G-Sync and Freesync variants). Acer fixed the problem with a firmware update, but I'm guessing stock in inventory/in situ wasn't updated. Warranty replacements for affected units was clarified by Acer in October.

Actually, Dell's warranty is tiered. I certainly wouldn't dispute that Dell has a premium warranty service - I mentioned as much earlier.
As I said, the panels are the same (Acer/Asus/Dell/LG curved 34") - all W-LED backlight, all with the same comparable backlight bleed, luminosity, and colour reproduction), so visually there isn't a distinction. It is up to the consumer what other attributes they prefer to have. Dell offers a good warranty, good build quality, good I/O options, and good OSD. The input lag isn't good (the Acer is around a third of the Dell) and you won't get the refresh range that the Acer (or the Asus for that matter) has by a substantial margin.

Other monitor companies should follow Dell's warranty system. The service you get on ultrasharp monitors is top notch. They will literally keep sending you replacement panels until you find everything is perfect, all without having to wait to send in your replacement.

Seriously though, spending over a grand on a monitor not having a 0 dead pixel guarantee is ridiculous. You can get 4k Korean panels with a high refresh rate with this at a bargain price that use LG panels too. I see more and more of them coming out with Free-Sync support too.

A side note, AMD Crimson drivers added the ability to duplicate frames when the FPS is below the monitor's target refresh rate. This was a feature that G-Sync had over Free-Sync. Now the two monitor techs should be on even ground when it comes to user experience.

 

[amstech]

A little bit confused, .

We can see that.

Classic flip flop statement. If you cannot defend your own point jump to the other side. .

You do have to pay to play if you want the best, my statement is in-arguable.
1080p is small chips.

The argument that you can get a cheap panel that performs well is true, but does not do anything to disprove my point.

 

[TechSam]

as someone said above, wait for release of next gen amd/NVidia gpu, these 'limited video ports' models will have price cuts...

Late reply and I apologise. Do you mean the "limited" port won't make a difference and will just bring down the price?

 

[dividebyzero]

Late reply and I apologise. Do you mean the "limited" port won't make a difference and will just bring down the price?

I think the inference is that the next-gen graphics cards (and monitors) will have DisplayPort 1.3 support, which will provide higher bandwidth, and more options for 4K, 5K, dual-4K, and 8K panels. Laptop, AIO, and other embedded GPUs should also have basically similar DisplayPort 1.4b support.

 

[CJMFrisco]

Easily one of the ugliest monitors I've seen.

Guess there's no accounting for taste. It's a beauty in my eyes.

 

[CJMFrisco]

2 show stoppers...the price and it's curved. Makes it a definite no-go for me. This curved mess is about as well received for me as 3D was for TV's. I wouldn't touch it.

I can't stand curved televisions, but the subtle curve on this display makes sense at the distance one sits from a desktop monitor. It actually enhances gaming, albeit adding nothing of much value to standard desktop computing.

 

[sux2bu]

I will never understand a person's perception that ultra-wide provides 'an advantage' in being able to 'see more'. lol, you Do understand that you've only limited your up/down view I hope - the screen is Never 'wider', the 'director' has cut off the top and bottom to deliver a 'premium movie'.

Once upon a time, in a land far away, there was a lens that could deliver More information to a film-stock (necessarily) limited to 4:3 and therefore deliver a superior image for Huge movies. The fact that close-ups now looked truly stupid didn't take away from the otherwise beautiful image that was delivered. The cost of using this equipment was Prohibitively expensive, hence the consumer view that a 'wide' movie was premium, it easily Doubled the cost of a movie's budget.

Switch to Now, and the lens doesn't Need to play tricks to deliver astounding resolution, but 21:9 lives on, as it delivers a 'premium' movie experience to some people. To others, it unnecessarily limits vision to turret-view, completely unnatural compared to actual vision - it arbitrarily takes away rather than adds, and does so only to feed the perception of the people that define 'ultra-wide' movies as 'premium'.

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[sux2bu]

The director hasn't "cut off" (cropped) the top and bottom. The reason for the black bars top and bottom is because the actual width of the movie is wider than the tv you're watching it on. So to see the additional information on the sides it has to be squeezed (for lack of the proper term) from both sides as well as top to bottom which gives you the black borders. That's necessary to see all of the information of the wider view. If this wasn't done and to have no black borders top and bottom would mean that you wouldn't see as much information on the sides as your display wouldn't be able to see it.

 

[Phr3d]

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

The director hasn't "cut off" (cropped) the top and bottom. The reason for the black bars top and bottom is because the actual width of the movie is wider than the tv you're watching it on. So to see the additional information on the sides it has to be squeezed (for lack of the proper term) from both sides as well as top to bottom which gives you the black borders. That's necessary to see all of the information of the wider view. If this wasn't done and to have no black borders top and bottom would mean that you wouldn't see as much information on the sides as your display wouldn't be able to see it.

Let me know how shopping for lenses that deliver what you describe goes, you'll obviously be surprised (your camera delivers a 4:3 image, as does the human eye). enjoy your turret-view Premium content.

 

[Stunt Panda]

I own this monitor and can attest to the accuracy of the review.

The menu system is pretty horrible. Most egregious is the fact that the power button isn't under the power light so for the first day I was constantly turning off the monitor instead of moving right in the menu. Every monitor, especially at this price point, should use a joystick like button.

One thing that wasn't mentioned is the monitor stand. While it's a beautiful piece of art, it's a terrible stand. It protrudes quite far in front of the monitor itself making it impossible to put your keyboard near the monitor and it's a wobbly tripod instead of a solid, flat base. I immediatly swapped the stand for a VESA monitor mount pole (which I had to use spacers with because of the curve). I got back so much desktop real estate I can actually keep my gigantic Thrustmaster HOTAS on my desk even when I'm not using it.

Those are minor complaints though: overall the monitor is amazing. It's the perfect width for my work allowing me to replace two 27" monitors, there's virtually no light bleed, and G-Sync makes gaming super smooth. The extra 31.25% physical screen width is a huge help when playing games, especially racing games and shooters. For work the 3440 x 1440 res is MUCH more useful than the 3840 x 1080 res of dual 1920 x 1080 monitors.

If you've got the money, you'll love this monitor. I do.