Racing Gets Real with the BenQ XR3501 Curved LCD Gaming Monitor

[btarunr]

How real do you want your racing? Do you want to feel the engine rattle your bones and your stomach drop as you take a banked curve at nearly 200 miles per hour? Get ready, because BenQ, a world-leading human technology and solutions provider - and professional gaming monitor pioneer - today released the ultimate high-performance curved LCD monitor designed for a more immersive racing experience: the XR3501. Created for demanding racing gamers, the XR3501straps players in the driver's seat with its 2000R curvature - the most of any LCD monitor - and extra-wide 21:9 aspect ratio.

Racing gamers want a real driving experience, and that is exactly what the XR3501 delivers in a high-speed feast for the senses that will have players living every heart-pounding moment of the race. Designed with extensive input from experts on and off the track, the XR3501features a full 35-inch screen and 2560x1080 resolution for visuals that will make you brace for every intense turn as you fight to break free of the pack. The 144Hz refresh rate keeps the action flowing smoothly for an experience that is as real as racing gets without a trip to the track.



Immerse yourself in the action
The ultimate racing game experience unfolds when you lose yourself in the action. The mundane world of your home or office fades away and you are transported to the Grand Hotel hairpin at Monaco or the pits at Talladega. XR3501's 2000R curved screen puts the roadway right on your desktop. The concave 35-inch screen wraps around your peripheral visual range, making it easier to feel the thrill of speeding through city streets or making the dirt fly in a backroad rally. But before you get too lost in your virtual race, remember there are others maneuvering for the checkered flag and winner's circle, as well. The XR3501's extra wide 21:9 aspect ratio gives you significantly more space to keep an eye on your instruments and fellow drivers.

Virtual racing has never felt as real as it does with the XR3501. The monitor's 2000R curvature is the most of any LCD monitor on the market, and that adds up to a driving experience that is the closest thing on a desktop to getting behind the wheel of an actual race car. Coupled with the monitor's 144Hz refresh rate, you will swear you are in the heart of the action as scenery wraps around you with breathless fluidity.

See every detail
Lighting fast reactions don't count for much if you can't see the next turn. The XR3501 solves this with crystal clear 2560x1080 screen resolution and vibrant colors that will have you seeing every detail, from the decals on your opponents' cars to the roadside grass and leaves on the trees you speed by.

The XR3501's Color Vibrance feature allows you to easily adjust color and detail settings based on your personal preferences. Lighting changes can hide critical details. Do the other cars seem to vanish in the darkness of a tunnel? Throw some light on the problem with Black eQualizer, boosting the brightness of darker regions of the screen without blowing out the well-lit areas. Now you can see every detail without sacrificing image quality.

Feel the speed
Nothing can pull a racing gamer out of a fully immersive experience faster than jerky, stuttering visuals and animations. The XR3501 keeps the action fast and smooth with the help of its 144Hz refresh rate. The higher refresh rate eliminates blurring while lending a more natural look to everything from other vehicles to passing scenery.

The XR3501curved LCD gaming monitor is expected to retail in the second quarter of 2015.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[daftkoi]

no 3440 x 1440; no care. also no g-sync, freesync

 

[Haytch]

Waste of technology. This has already been released by other manufactures that offer better features and specifications.
4k is the current standard, anything less is old news.
Curved displays are a meer stepping stone for fully adjustable screens which will be released next year.
3 x curved displays were a nightmare to look at and use in a practical manner back in the day (2013) and now 2 years later, they are a major gimmick for major players whom majorly don't care about the cash they waste.
FTW : Live For Speed on 4k is awesome!

Good luck BenQ

 

[Prima.Vera]

no 3440 x 1440; no care. also no g-sync, freesync

Or at least 2800x1200

4k is the current standard, anything less is old news.

Most definitely 4K is not the current standard. YET.

 

[Haytch]

Most definitely 4K is not the current standard. YET


Depends how outdated you are and the environment. I understand what you mean by YET, it's just not everywhere YET, but if someone was to go out and buy a new monitor or television panel, it would be 4k, unless they got something old.

I guess some people still consider 'current standard' to be what the majority have, others think that 'current standard' is what is currently available and maybe some consider 'current standard' to be what people should be buying instead of the old standard. I know that most monitors sold in 2014 are 1024x1280 in accordance to Samsung, LG and Phillips and I am guessing that covers the server and office environment, but for me, that's a current standard for those environments (perhaps out-dated for the office environment, but we tend to see them in banks, point-of-sales etc etc), probably to save desktop space.

In this instance, we are talking about the latest and greatest in high-end gaming. Hence, the current standard for high-end gaming, would be 4K. In-fact, there are those that would argue that 5K or 8K should be considered.

Either way, 8640p (15,360 × 8,640 progressive scan; a speculated future standard) is what I will be upgrading too as soon as it is made available. I know this would put me into the out-dated segment for a while, but I think admitting I will be out-dated and waiting for the 8640p will be worth it.

Happy gaming everyone.

 

[64K]

Most definitely 4K is not the current standard. YET


Depends how outdated you are and the environment. I understand what you mean by YET, it's just not everywhere YET, but if someone was to go out and buy a new monitor or television panel, it would be 4k, unless they got something old.

I guess some people still consider 'current standard' to be what the majority have, others think that 'current standard' is what is currently available and maybe some consider 'current standard' to be what people should be buying instead of the old standard. I know that most monitors sold in 2014 are 1024x1280 in accordance to Samsung, LG and Phillips and I am guessing that covers the server and office environment, but for me, that's a current standard for those environments (perhaps out-dated for the office environment, but we tend to see them in banks, point-of-sales etc etc), probably to save desktop space.

In this instance, we are talking about the latest and greatest in high-end gaming. Hence, the current standard for high-end gaming, would be 4K. In-fact, there are those that would argue that 5K or 8K should be considered.

Either way, 8640p (15,360 × 8,640 progressive scan; a speculated future standard) is what I will be upgrading too as soon as it is made available. I know this would put me into the out-dated segment for a while, but I think admitting I will be out-dated and waiting for the 8640p will be worth it.

Happy gaming everyone.

According to the Steam Hardware Survey about 1 out of 2,000 people are gaming on 4K. I can't link you to it at work but take a look at what the average person is gaming with as far as GPU and monitor. The vast majority of people aren't buying a 4K monitor right now because of the cost of the monitor and also because of the expense of buying enough GPU grunt to run that resolution at playable frame rates. Maybe in a few years but for almost everyone definitely not right now.

 

[Frick]

snip

I sorta get your point, but it's a narrow one. Some would say high end gaming is maintaining +100 FPS, which requires a beefy system even on 1080p. I'd rather go for that than 4k honestly.

Anyway I'd love to try a curved monitor, just to see if it does something. It feels like it has the potential to increase what Bethsoft calls immershun, with the right setup.

 

[Xajel]

I can't think of a reason to have 1080p ( 16:9 or 21:9 ) on a screen larger than 27", unless they're whispering those who want large screen with their not-so-powerful GPU's

any way, if these sells good, then there's other peoples who thinks these are good...

for me, I want a 1440p 21:9 screen, 29" flat not curved, freesync is not a must but a nice addition even thought I'm using NV.. but I hate gsync do to non-standard thingies and more cost for the same function...

still no one made this... but If the curved one came cheaper then I might think of it... and while any of these options becomes a real products, I hope some will think of having a USB 3.1 hub integrated into the display with at 1-2 Type-C ports... just future proofing the concept...

 

[mcloughj]

Snip.

Right there with you on that. Except I'd like a curve, don't want to pay extra for it though.

Also three of them.

 

[PLAfiller]

Most definitely 4K is not the current standard. YET


Depends how outdated you are and the environment. I understand what you mean by YET, it's just not everywhere YET, but if someone was to go out and buy a new monitor or television panel, it would be 4k, unless they got something old.

I guess some people still consider 'current standard' to be what the majority have, others think that 'current standard' is what is currently available and maybe some consider 'current standard' to be what people should be buying instead of the old standard. I know that most monitors sold in 2014 are 1024x1280 in accordance to Samsung, LG and Phillips and I am guessing that covers the server and office environment, but for me, that's a current standard for those environments (perhaps out-dated for the office environment, but we tend to see them in banks, point-of-sales etc etc), probably to save desktop space.

In this instance, we are talking about the latest and greatest in high-end gaming. Hence, the current standard for high-end gaming, would be 4K. In-fact, there are those that would argue that 5K or 8K should be considered.

Either way, 8640p (15,360 × 8,640 progressive scan; a speculated future standard) is what I will be upgrading too as soon as it is made available. I know this would put me into the out-dated segment for a while, but I think admitting I will be out-dated and waiting for the 8640p will be worth it.

Happy gaming everyone.

I beg to differ. As @64K mentioned, let's look at the numbers. Apparently you are somewhat financially secured, because no matter how much I want I won't be able to switch to 4K any time soon. Let alone the fact that, you can't get a monitor even close to 4K in the mid-range price segment. (EU-27, not US speaking). Happy gaming dude, but 4K has quite some time travelling before it is considered a standard from my point of view. And 5K and 8K are for the most part show off at CES right now.

 

[Chaitanya]

According to the Steam Hardware Survey about 1 out of 2,000 people are gaming on 4K. I can't link you to it at work but take a look at what the average person is gaming with as far as GPU and monitor. The vast majority of people aren't buying a 4K monitor right now because of the cost of the monitor and also because of the expense of buying enough GPU grunt to run that resolution at playable frame rates. Maybe in a few years but for almost everyone definitely not right now.

Dont bother wasting energy, these people will keep whining about the monitor not being 4k or that GTX970 has just 3.5GB of Ram. There are a lot of 4K trolls on this forum itself.

 

[nickbaldwin86]

GAH! 1080p fails!

3440x1440 and 144hz!

 

[Legacy-ZA]

GAH! 1080p fails!

3440x1440 and 144hz!

Which will mean nothing if you can't keep your FPS above 150 at all time to avoid dipping just below the 144 fps range with V-sync turned on. This doesn't even include ultra settings with AA on with demanding titles.

 

[Petey Plane]

Most definitely 4K is not the current standard. YET
Words

4k will not be the standard until a single, sub $300 GPU can smoothly play AAA games a high settings on a 4k monitor. I think your financial resources have blinded you to the reality of the vast majority of PC gamers. I believe that Intel Integrated Graphics are still the #1 GPUs with steam users. And yes, the vast majority of new TVs sold are still 1080p. Overall, 4K has not caught on the the consumer market, and is only doing slightly better than 3D TVs were doing a couple years ago. Mass 4K adoption is still a few years away.

 

[nickbaldwin86]

Which will mean nothing if you can't keep your FPS above 150 at all time to avoid dipping just below the 144 fps range with V-sync turned on. This doesn't even include ultra settings with AA on with demanding titles.

WHAT!?! I'm sorry I guess we should all go back to playing @ 720p

Two Titan X's will run 3440x1440 @ 144hz without a care

 

[ZoneDymo]

I beg to differ. As @64K mentioned, let's look at the numbers. Apparently you are somewhat financially secured, because no matter how much I want I won't be able to switch to 4K any time soon. Let alone the fact that, you can't get a monitor even close to 4K in the mid-range price segment. (EU-27, not US speaking). Happy gaming dude, but 4K has quite some time travelling before it is considered a standard from my point of view. And 5K and 8K are for the most part show off at CES right now.

Its a bit off but I am kinda with him, he sees what is now most used as basically living in the past.
What we aim for is the standard, a new level to aspire to.
Like a new car setting the benchmark, setting a new standard that all manufactures from that point forward should try to match.
That you and I and others wont switch to 4k any time soon only would mean something if we actually are planning to buying a new full HD screen or something similar soon.
But I dont think we are, we are just waiting for prices to come down and gpu's to catch up.
With that 4k is kinda the new standard.

Where I totally disagree though is that only the resolution would determine a new standard for high end gaming.
I would instead say that for games it seems to me that refresh rate is more important.
The 4k screens coming out now are 60hz, aka, no improvement over the dreary 60hz we had for years now and pro games used to use CRT's over LCD's for exactly that reason.

This screen is 144hz and in that, a new standard (still) to aspire to as a high end gamer.
On top of that this screens seems intended to be used in that 3 monitor setup, which will make the resolution much higher then any current (multi) gpu can handle with all the bells and whistles going on, so even in that category this monitor(s) is infact a new standard to aspire to.

 

[Prima.Vera]

The 4k screens coming out now are 60hz, aka, no improvement over the dreary 60hz we had for years now and pro games used to use CRT's over LCD's for exactly that reason.

Even nowadays, real pro FPS gamers are only using CRTs, like those Mitsubitshi or Sony's 22" ones with 1600x1200@100Hz. But again, let's not confuse the refresh rate on LCDs and refresh rate on CRTs...

 

[Octavean]

It used to be some people would bemoan 1920x1080 monitors ad nauseam.

I never agreed with that point of view for a number of different reasons and I still don't. Especially so since even lower resolution monitors are still being manufactured and sold. There is plenty of room in the market for all sorts of different size and resolution combinations. If anything 1920x1080 monitors are typically within a reasonable budget price range which makes scrutinizing its attributes even more questionable.

Personally I want higher resolution monitors so if I am buying now its likely to be a 4K monitor or UHD TV. My last three purchases were an LG 55UB8500 55" UHD 4K Smart TV with HDMI 2.0 60Hz 4:4:4 model, a Samsung U28D590D and an Acer B286HK (which I got on sale at about ~$349).

If I were buying now I would probably get a Seiki Pro SM40UNP 40" (~$968), Philips BDM4065UC 40" (~$978) or maybe an Acer B326HK 32" (~$899 USD).

However, this wouldn't be specifically for playing games and I fully respect the existence of lower resolution monitors. As for gaming I have no problem bumping the resolution down since gaming isn't my life's blood or sole reason for being.

 

[Legacy-ZA]

WHAT!?! I'm sorry I guess we should all go back to playing @ 720p

Two Titan X's will run 3440x1440 @ 144hz without a care

Look, it's simple, one buys a 144hz Monitor that supports 2560x1080 to actually be able to maintain those levels on that resolution... otherwise it might as well just have been a 60hz screen powered by a single GTX760/960
2x titan X's can do it to a certain extent, depending on the game you play and on what detail levels, also, not every games scales perfectly with a SLi/Crossfire. Not to mention, this is hardly main stream... if it were, 90% of everyone would have had such a setup by now.

No one is saying not to push the boundaries of computer technology and what was developed isn't fascinating because it is... It's just not practical for mainstream use, YET. Anyway take it for what you will, I am moving on.

 

[deemon]

Depends how outdated you are and the environment. I understand what you mean by YET, it's just not everywhere YET, but if someone was to go out and buy a new monitor or television panel, it would be 4k, unless they got something old.

You, my dear sir, are delusional.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
Primary Display Resolution; 3840 x 2160; 0.06%

I myself am going to build new computer this fall also, when Skylake comes out finally, and even then I am not even looking at 4k monitors... maybe one of those 21:9 monitors, probably even 2560 x 1080 only, because the money you need to build anything capable of displaying decent fps on any higher resolutions at this moment of time, is just way out of most peoples budget.

HOWEVER this monitor sucks because: 1. no IPS; 2. no (O)LED backlight; 3. no g-sync/freesync

 

[RejZoR]

I don't get it why is it so hard to make a nearly bezel-less monitor. When I've disassembled one, the actual panel had a metal frame which could by itself be a super thin bezel. I just don't get it... You can't stack monitors like that and have a 3cm gab of bezel in between them. It's stupid.

 

[Haytch]

I admit, I don't just use my 4k monitor for gaming. Initially I required 4K display for my 4k video camera recordings. 4k video recording became available a while ago and for me since the Samsung s5 release. I grew tired of watching 4k video recordings of family and events at 1080 and got myself 4k display's. The bonus is I can now game at 4k since my GPU supported it.
When I saw the quality difference between 1080p and 4K, I went out and got myself a proper 4k video camera which gave me a much better picture quality then my Samsung s5, which has recently been upgraded to a Samsung s6.

Also, the first day I ever saw a 46" x 1080p Sony Bravia TV in action I felt the quality was filthy and preferred a 22" x 1080p display. Anything larger than 40-46" quality was seriously poor from my point of view, but people still bought them and felt proud with their new 1080p display, including me! I loved the size, not the quality. Now with 4k, I can accept the bigger screen quality. Personally, I prefer to sit closer to the display and have a smaller display with a higher resolution.

I am also sorry if I made people uncomfortable with my previous posts, it was just my opinion. I understand that some people are more financially challenged than others but that still does not change the fact that 4k is out, available and cheaper on release date than 1080p was. I do not mind playing games at sub 100 FPS at 4k, because I am not a fighter pilot that requires 1000+ FPS. If I am not mistaken, sub-60 FPS is what our blueray/dvd or favourite television show is broadcasting. I am not forgetting that the further away from a bigger screen is when the higher resolution actually becomes beneficial in comparison to lower resolution.

A friend of mine has 3 curved screens for his racing simulator and I only have 3 flat screens and his setup has a much better feel for racing/flight sim.

Survey's don't interest me, everyone knows it is always a minority that is actually surveyed and the majority of people that are surveyed have no need for anything high-end, including pc's and displays. The survey deemon quoted mentions that 27.98% use a multi-monitor setup to achieve 4k which would most likely cost the same as a 4k monitor or more as opposed with 34.62% that use 1080p.
The same survey deemon quoted mentioned that over 45% use English when compared with the Chinese of Indian language(s)/dialects is just a minority.
There are some websites that claim to have performed extensive surveys and that according to their findings, 1366x768 is more popular than 1080p, or any other resolution. Link 1, Link 2, Link 3. Sorry, once again, survey's don't interest me.

So, allowing me to rephrase myself because you are all forgiving and understanding, 4K may not be the standard for some of you, but it surely is for me. Yep, my refresh rate sucks! I need 4k for playback of video recordings and the editing of it but very much enjoy the gaming experience that came with it.

Chaitanya, the GTX970 DOES have 3.5Gb Ram, lol. Im not sure what the mid-range price segment is meant to be, but I picked up a Samsung 28" 4k monitor for $499 AUD the week they were released and another 2 at $399 AUD several months later. Looking at 1080p monitors, yes they go for around $250 AUD. Double the price, Quad resolution, hmmm.