Acer Predator X34 Gaming Monitor Review

[Rick]

Since the first ultrawide display graced our desks in 2013, manufacturers have continued to refine format by introducing new models and features. After releasing the world’s first 21:9 consumer display in 2012, LG continued to up the ante by launching both the first curved and first FreeSync ultrawides.

Other manufacturers have since released a full spectrum of displays, some curved, some 34 inches, some compatible with FreeSync. Curiously though, G-Sync was nowhere to be found. Eyeing an opportunity, Acer’s now the company with something no one else has: a curved 34 inch ultrawide rocking G-Sync.

Acer’s Predator X34 has a curved UQHD (3440 x 1440) AH-IPS panel and garners reasonable gaming cred with a 100Hz vertical refresh rate, G-Sync and an interesting design. Should GeForce owners be drooling or is this one a hard pass?

Read the complete review.

 

[VitalyT]

Would have been a great buy, at least 6 month ago. Now, I'm not sure. We are expecting the first appearance of DisplayPort 1.4 in the next generation of video cards, which is less than 3 month away, and paying so much for a monitor that only got the old inputs may be not a good investment.

 

[Adhmuz]

"The Predator X34 also has its share of faults. Dropping $1299 on a display with limited input connectivity, clumsy OSD controls and potential backlight bleed problems will undoubtedly make some buyers squeamish."

Those are two major deal breakers for me, for a monitor that cost over $1000 to have not only a clumsy half-assed OSD which could be overlooked once properly configured, but to also have that degree of screen bleed is unacceptable. Backlight bleed will always be noticeable and annoying, with a harsh reminder you paid way too much for something that is clearly not worth the price of admission. The other issue, the over inflation of the price due to G-Sync, it's a selling point fine, but also the reason for the excessive price tag. VitalyT nailed it too, it's already going to be out of date by the end of the year making it even more difficult to drop this kind of money on a display.

 

[yRaz]

Would have been a great buy, at least 6 month ago. Now, I'm not sure. We are expecting the first appearance of DisplayPort 1.4 in the next generation of video cards, which is less than 3 month away, and paying so much for a monitor that only got the old inputs may be not a good investment.

Old inputs that still serve the resolution and refresh rate just fine. It's not like the connector is going to change either so DP 1.4 connectors will fit on 1.3 devices. That is such a none issue when making this kind of purchase that it's not worth mentioning.

 

[amstech]

You gotta pay to play, I dropped $1200 on my U3011 before 2K type resolutions became affordable.
It's a decent gamer, has some latency and bleed but overall a good gaming panel. 3M coating is a pain though.

 

[VitalyT]

You gotta pay to play, I dropped $1200 on my U3011 before 2K type resolutions became affordable.
It's a decent gamer, has some latency and bleed but overall a good gaming panel. 3M coating is a pain though.

And I have been using U3014 for the last 2 years, which is also nothing short of perfect. Not even sure when I would consider changing it. It also cost me about $1200 back then.

 

[Nobina]

Easily one of the ugliest monitors I've seen.

 

[Phr3d]

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'.

 

[Someone8MyPosts]

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.

 

[Someone8MyPosts]

You gotta pay to play, I dropped $1200 on my U3011 before 2K type resolutions became affordable.
It's a decent gamer, has some latency and bleed but overall a good gaming panel. 3M coating is a pain though.

I completely and respectfully disagree. I wouldn't throw $1200 or even $500 of my hard-earned cash on something like this. I can find a monitor that is just as big and with close resolution for less. Having said that, I'm fine with a 22" 1080p monitor that focuses on color gamut, brightness, and reproduction. I could see me spending < $500 and getting a few of these.

 

[Steve]

You gotta pay to play, I dropped $1200 on my U3011 before 2K type resolutions became affordable.
It's a decent gamer, has some latency and bleed but overall a good gaming panel. 3M coating is a pain though.

And I have been using U3014 for the last 2 years, which is also nothing short of perfect. Not even sure when I would consider changing it. It also cost me about $1200 back then.

I have a triple U3014 setup and also find these monitors perfect. I have a few nice 4K monitors as well but I mostly just use them for testing as I prefer the U3014's. They scale much better in Windows and look just as good for gaming in my opinion. I am still waiting for a 'better' monitor to come by.

Also real men game at 16:10 lol

I completely and respectfully disagree. I wouldn't throw $1200 or even $500 of my hard-earned cash on something like this. I can find a monitor that is just as big and with close resolution for less. Having said that, I'm fine with a 22" 1080p monitor that focuses on color gamut, brightness, and reproduction. I could see me spending < $500 and getting a few of these.

It really depends on what you are used to. I am confident that I speak for most who have a 27” monitor or larger when I say going back to a 22” on the desktop would be quite painful.

It is fine not to want to spend $500 dollars on a monitor but I find it very easy to justify if you spend a lot of time on your PC I.e. for work or you are just a gamer that needs help.

 

[amstech]

I completely and respectfully disagree. I wouldn't throw $1200 or even $500 of my hard-earned cash on something like this. I can find a monitor that is just as big and with close resolution for less. Having said that, I'm fine with a 22" 1080p monitor that focuses on color gamut, brightness, and reproduction. I could see me spending < $500 and getting a few of these.

I will try and make this quick.
When I bought my U3011 there was no 1440p/1600p market/options like there are now. NONE.
Thats the major point your missing here, the market has changed drastically in 5 years.
Let that sink in for a second.
I came from a 23" 1080p monitor but compared to a 30" 1600p it was night and day.
It was either that or a triple monitor setup and the bezels on monitors 4-5 years ago steered me away from that (HP made a 2K panel as well but the Dell was just a better built unit IMO).
As far as color reproduction/clarity, the U3011 is a spectacle. In certain games like WoW/StarCraft there is a massive advantage to having a better resolution, as well as running older games like Doom 3 BFG Edition at resolutions so high that by themselves, the game looks incredible.
I don't regret my purchase and I plan to get 10 years out of my U3011, and I am halfway there. Only catch is you need a system that can run 1600p games @ 60FPS but now with Gsync on todays panels, that also flipped the world upside down.

Bottom line, I just wanted 1600P gaming, I didn't care at what cost. And yes, its significantly better then 1080p/1200p.

 

[Steve]

I completely and respectfully disagree. I wouldn't throw $1200 or even $500 of my hard-earned cash on something like this. I can find a monitor that is just as big and with close resolution for less. Having said that, I'm fine with a 22" 1080p monitor that focuses on color gamut, brightness, and reproduction. I could see me spending < $500 and getting a few of these.

I will try and make this quick.
When I bought my U3011 there was no 1440p/1600p market/options like there are now. NONE.
Thats the major point your missing here, the market has changed drastically in 5 years.
Let that sink in for a second.
I came from a 23" 1080p monitor but compared to a 30" 1600p it was night and day.
It was either that or a triple monitor setup and the bezels on monitors 4-5 years ago steered me away from that (HP made a 2K panel as well but the Dell was just a better built unit IMO).
As far as color reproduction clarity, the U3011 is a spectacle. In certain games like WoW/StarCraft there is a massive advantage to having a better resolution, as well as running older games like Doom 3 BFG Edition at resolutions so high that by themselves, the game looks incredible.
I don't regret my purchase and I plan to get 10 years out of my U3011, and I am halfway there. Only catch is you need a system that can run 1600p games @ 60FPS but now with Gsync on todays panels, that also flipped the world upside down.

Bottom line, I just wanted 1600P gaming, I didn't care at what cost. And yes, its significantly better then 1080p/1200p.

Don’t forget your monitor is still amazing and there is no reason or need to upgrade it even now so you will continue to get value out of it for years to come. Since you plan to get 10 years out of it, you are obviously not forgetting this

Speaking of which I have two 3007’s that are now 10 years old and still working, though one did need a power supply change about 2 years ago which was a pain. Still they have worked out to have cost me less than $200 Australian ($150ish US) a year so far, so not a bad investment for a pair of monitors that have spent most of their 10 year life turned on

 

[Rick]

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'.

I share your sentiment on this trend for narrower and narrower screens *but* in the 16:9 world we live in, this is generally not true for gaming. By the way, I'm qualifying this with "generally" because game devs can do anything they want... But I've never noticed 4:3 showing more vertical world in a game than 16:9. This is true for 21:9 as well -- the amount of visible vertical world remains the same. The only difference, because game devs make it this way, is an advantage in horizontal space. Could 4:3 show more? Sure. But 16:9 is the standard and this respect, 21:9 with the same or better vertical resolution is ultimately an improvement.

 

[NightAntilli]

Looks like a very great monitor. If they release a FreeSync version with a FreeSync range that has a minimum of 30 Hz, I might consider getting this. I'm not gonna buy a G-sync monitor if I'm not going to use it. Not only that, I like me some open standards rather than proprietary solutions.

 

[dividebyzero]

Looks like a very great monitor. If they release a FreeSync version with a FreeSync range that has a minimum of 30 Hz, I might consider getting this. I'm not gonna buy a G-sync monitor if I'm not going to use it. Not only that, I like me some open standards rather than proprietary solutions.

The Freesync version ( XR341CK ) does have a vertical refresh range of 30-75Hz - a little narrower than the X34 Predator featured here (23-100Hz)

 

[madboyv1]

Also real men game at 16:10 lol

On this comment alone I have to like this post... Running a calibrated U2410f myself and I love it. I think the lamp is starting to go though since it take a while to warm up both in color saturation and brightness, and it seems no one makes decent 16:10 monitors anymore, just Dell and HP pretty much. =( Maybe I should try one of those Korean Monitors...

 

[TechSam]

As someone who is looking to buy this monitor or its brother the XR341CK. Do you guys think its good to buy now or later?

 

[misor]

As someone who is looking to buy this monitor or its brother the XR341CK. Do you guys think its good to buy now or later?

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

 

[SuperVeloce]

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'.

Most block buster movies are shot in 2,35:1 or something like that. Some are 1,85:1 and so on... 16:9 content is almost always the "cut" version, unless your main content is tv series.

Wide is more "natural" for us and 2,35:1 is not enough for "turret vision". Far from that.

 

[Razer#]

Would have been a great buy, at least 6 month ago. Now, I'm not sure. We are expecting the first appearance of DisplayPort 1.4 in the next generation of video cards, which is less than 3 month away, and paying so much for a monitor that only got the old inputs may be not a good investment.

You gotta pay to play, I dropped $1200 on my U3011 before 2K type resolutions became affordable.
It's a decent gamer, has some latency and bleed but overall a good gaming panel. 3M coating is a pain though.

This isn't 100% true, not with the Korean monitor craze.

If you are unfamiliar, it was a point in time when the Korean panel manufacturers began selling the rejected display panels from big name brands (Apple and Dell primarily).

My Achievia Shimian 27" 2k display, was had at $280 and despite some noticible bleed at the top edge and bottom left corner, performs remarkably well. The panel inside is the same one used in the 27" Apple cinima display. A $1200 with similar (albeit better) black light bleed issues. For literally 1/4th the price though completely worth the minor flaw.

Unfortunately now though, prices have gone up. The same monitor I bought 3 years ago for 280$ is notlw well over 400$.

 

[NightAntilli]

The Freesync version ( XR341CK ) does have a vertical refresh range of 30-75Hz - a little narrower than the X34 Predator featured here (23-100Hz)

Oh awesome. Didn't know it existed. Thanks man. Much appreciated.

 

[amstech]

This isn't 100% true, not with the Korean monitor craze.
If you are unfamiliar, it was a point in time when the Korean panel manufacturers began selling the rejected display panels from big name brands (Apple and Dell primarily).

Those were not out yet.
At the earliest a very select few started to release a few months after I made my purchase, all of them cheaply made from shady Korean manufacturers, questionable reviews and with no reputation.
I remember reading some overclock.net experiences after they got popular and people had refresh rate issues and serious back light bleed.

 

[Evernessince]

You gotta pay to play, I dropped $1200 on my U3011 before 2K type resolutions became affordable.
It's a decent gamer, has some latency and bleed but overall a good gaming panel. 3M coating is a pain though.

Maybe if you want that chintzy gamer look. Otherwise you can find good gaming monitors at a fraction of the cost.

 

[amstech]

Maybe if you want that chintzy gamer look.

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?

Otherwise you can find good gaming monitors at a fraction of the cost.

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