July 20, 2017 at 6:54 am #44142
I haven’t really found a thread similar to what I’m wondering about regarding refresh rate. First off, the current ultrawides on the market are 100hz or 120hz (Z35P) and they cost quite alot of money – But soonish (slated for Q4, but knowing asus and acer, release date will more like be Q2 or Q3 2018) PG35VQ and X35 will enter the market with 200hz refreshrate.
Now I know the difference from 144hz to 200hz is next to nothing IRL unless you are nr. 1 CS GO player in the world. But how big a deal is the swing from 100hz to 144hz on an ultrawide? I mean the resolution 3440×1440 is quite big and even with 1080 TI you would be hard pressed to even get average 100 FPS in demanding titles, let alone 200 or 144hz. And it will be quite some time until you are able to hit those high numbers? And whats the point in buying such an expensive monitor and then run games at low detail to hit high fps numbers? It seems very counterintuitive
So now that old PG348Q and X34 continue to drop a bit in price / go on quite good sales – is it really worth waiting and buying the 200hz one? I know there are other benefits to the new Ultrawides in form of quantum dots, HDR etc – but the price will also be enormous.
What do you guys think?July 20, 2017 at 10:29 am #44144
As I’m currently reviewing a 240Hz monitor (ViewSonic XG2530) I suppose I am in the right mindset to share some thoughts on this. It is extremely subjective and this is just based on my experiences of various frame rates and refresh rates. The below assumes that pixel response times aren’t a limiting factor. Or at the very least, the monitor can make a decent go of its refresh rate and there aren’t any show-stopping weaknesses that significantly impact perceived blur. I know there will be some pixel responsiveness weaknesses on the VA models you’re considering here, that’s unavoidable. But I still think plenty of the transitions will be fast enough to make a good go of 200Hz even (time will tell). The below also assumes a frame rate matching the refresh rate – without an increased frame rate, the advantages simply aren’t there.
– The bump up from 60Hz to 100Hz is the most impressive in terms of ‘connected feel’ and cutting an edge off perceived blur, in my view. The overall boost in playability is excellent.
– Going from 100Hz to 144Hz is a nice boost. Not as impressive as from 60Hz to 100Hz I feel, but still noticeable and something I appreciate.
– Going from 144Hz to 200Hz is another nice boost, but even less impressive or useful than 100Hz to 144Hz. I don’t personally feel it gives me any sort of competitive edge (to a competitive gamer playing fast paced games, it surely would). So for casual gamers it’s more of a nice bonus than an essential feature. The perceived blur is reduced and the ‘connected feel’ is that bit better, assuming input lag isn’t an issue for the user in both cases. So this is more of a ‘nice to have’ than ‘important to have’ for casual gamers and it also relies on them pumping out an appropriate frame rate.
– I know you weren’t asking this, but I feel a similar ‘boost’ going from 200Hz to 240Hz. It’s certainly the case of diminishing returns here, but I still notice decreased perceived blur and a slightly better ‘connected feel’. Again, I feel this is a positive change, but doesn’t give me a competitive edge personally. And on my system it isn’t worth the visual sacrifice in terms of trying to get the frame rate – and that is just at 1920 x 1080 in the case of the XG2530.
So in summary, I feel when comparing 100Hz to 200Hz there is a nice boost. It’s certainly something that casual gamers and competitive gamers alike can appreciate. But I also feel for the more casual gamers, 200Hz is ‘overkill’. They will likely notice a nice boost up to around 150Hz, but the final 50Hz is likely not going to be something they will concern themselves with. Especially not if they need to make visual setting sacrifices to get there. On these sorts of monitors I don’t doubt that variable refresh rate technologies like G-SYNC will be really important for users. The fact that the likes of the Acer X35 and ASUS PG35VQ are 200Hz at 3440 x 1440 also provides some degree of ‘future proofing’ as GPU upgrades will not go to waste for quite some time.July 21, 2017 at 6:15 am #44152
Its a very good point regarding the future proof – until OLED becomes a thing without the drawbacks and prices are for normal consumers.
But its still 1500-2000 dollars/euro – which even with a decently paying job is quite alot of money, not the amount by itself isnt too crazy, but when you begin to compare it other things like TV’s, travel, savings account etc
Hell, for 2000 euro i can book 2 tickets to Japan from EU for 3 weeks. (only the flight tickets, but still!). And for 2000 i can almost buy PANASONIC TX65EX700E 65″ UHD TV.
Which is quite insane when you compare items in these price ranges. Decisions, decisions. Hmm.July 21, 2017 at 7:43 am #44153
It is a fair bit of money. Then again, some people pay that in rent every month. Or would pay that on a phone contract for a device they wouldn’t even keep as long as this monitor. So it’s all relative.July 21, 2017 at 9:02 am #44154
Exactly that – The problem with tech is, there is always something better around the corner (OLED!). But i would guess with the trouble panel manufacturers have with current LCD panels and huge delays, that OLED’s are a long, long, long, long time away. Im guessing 2020 earliest and then the price will be like 5000 dollars for 27″ (like we saw on the dell)
I have half a mind just buying the C32HG70 or the XG32VQ and be done with it, but then i know i will be kicking myself that i didnt wait and buy the pg35vq or X35 – since thats a far more interesting monitor, but then again it should be – since its 2x the amount of money. Guess it also depends on 21:9 is the future or it will die out since consols really have gigantic influence on PC games.July 21, 2017 at 9:24 am #44155
21:9 isn’t going anywhere. The consumer enthusiasm towards the technology and profitability for the manufacturers will prevent that.July 27, 2017 at 8:49 am #44220
A quick update, since the C32HG70 is beginning to pop up in my country at the price of ~800 dollars
Which is what the C34F791 costs aswell, and here is a whole new dilemma. Do you get the ultrawide or the 16:9? Jesus, all these options 😀 And i will mainly use it for gaming, i wont do any critical work on it.July 27, 2017 at 9:00 am #44221
Personal preferences and all that, but as somebody with extensive experience of both 16:9 and 21:9 models, I’d pick the latter.July 27, 2017 at 9:52 am #44222
If you were guessing, would you guess that the Z35P would have extended color gamut, being a va panel and all? Does the omen have 125% sRGB?July 27, 2017 at 10:43 am #44223July 27, 2017 at 11:26 am #44224
Sigh, there is no easy decision when it comes to monitors. I like extra saturation of wider color gamut like the c34f791, but the z35p has 120hz, which would make it more future prioof, but it has weaker gamut and really ugly bezels.
Im gonna cry Soon.July 27, 2017 at 11:52 am #44225
I feel your pain. I’m hoping that we might get some new models that aren’t quite as ‘extreme’ as the likes of the PG35VQ (which is of course 125% sRGB and 200Hz as well as its various other attributes). IFA in September could give an insight, but I don’t want to raise any hopes as I haven’t heard anything specific just yet.July 27, 2017 at 1:02 pm #44226
OH dang it, I forgot all about IFA.
Maybe there will finally be some info on all these monitors that were supposed to be released in Q1, Q2 and Q3.July 27, 2017 at 6:21 pm #44227July 27, 2017 at 6:38 pm #44228
Surely answered by my first reply to you today?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.