ViewSonic Rolls Out Elite XG341C-2K Curved Ultrawide QHD Monitor with DisplayHDR 1400

[btarunr]

ViewSonic today rolled out the Elite XG341C-2K, a 34-inch curved ultrawide QHD (UWQHD) gaming monitor. This ultrawide packs a couple of star attractions—first is its 200 Hz refresh-rate, which is impressive enough for a 1500R curved monitor; and the second is its 1,152-zone miniLED illumination, which combined with its 10 bpc color-depth (1.07 billion colors), and 720 cd/m² maximum brightness, gives it VESA DisplayHDR 1400 certification. Other gamer-friendly features include AMD FreeSync Premium Pro, PureXP motion-blur reduction technology, 1 ms MPRT response-time, and ViewSonic Command Center software (lets you toggle between various game-genre specific presets). The native resolution of this monitor is UWQHD (3440 x 1440 pixels). Display inputs include USB-C with DisplayPort passthrough, and HDMI 2.1. The company didn't reveal pricing.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[1d10t]

No mention about panel @btarunr ?

I'm a fan of UWQHD but I don't like Samsung price and LG already gave me 2 dead monitor, so I'll consider any option apart from these.

-=edit=-

Official site are up and it's VA, yes!

 

[Fatalfury]

Official site are up and it's VA, yes!

95% of all curved monitors are VA in nature.
exceptions are QD-OLED curved and 1 in 100 are ips curved monitor

 

[WhyBecauseReasons]

Sure would be nice if we started getting 3840 x 1600 monitors again.

 

[ARF]

Why do they save on the pixels count?
Haven't they ever noticed the screen-door effect this type of monitors is prone to?

It should be at least 5160 x 2160 or something... Not 3440 x 1440.

 

[Hxx]

Why do they save on the pixels count?
Haven't they ever noticed the screen-door effect this type of monitors is prone to?

It should be at least 5160 x 2160 or something... Not 3440 x 1440.

for a gaming monitor this is a very popular ppi and size. Its very hard to run 4k or higher at playable frames and most gamers prefer high refresh vs high ppi anyday, again for gaming which is what this is targeting.

 

[ARF]

for a gaming monitor this is a very popular ppi and size. Its very hard to run 4k or higher at playable frames and most gamers prefer high refresh vs high ppi anyday, again for gaming which is what this is targeting.

Neither of the things you write is even remotely true.
The supply is poor, not the demand requires such low-quality and lower resolution screens.
Also, 100% of the e-sports titles will run perfectly fine at very high FPS at 4K and beyond, no matter the graphics card.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

Neither of the things you write is even remotely true.
The supply is poor, not the demand requires such low-quality and lower resolution screens.
Also, 100% of the e-sports titles will run perfectly fine at very high FPS at 4K and beyond, no matter the graphics card.

And for those not playing e-sports? QHD provides a nice balance between pixel density and panel cost in the 27-34 inch range. You don't need to worry about font scaling on desktop, or render scaling in games. More != better.

 

[Hxx]

Neither of the things you write is even remotely true.
The supply is poor, not the demand requires such low-quality and lower resolution screens.
Also, 100% of the e-sports titles will run perfectly fine at very high FPS at 4K and beyond, no matter the graphics card.

you're trolling right? rolfl 4k esports titles? esports titles are 1080/1440 24-27 inch screens. google is your friend. the average gamer prefers higher refresh because that's by far a much more powerful metric for games than pixels. Again youre either trolling or you're in the wrong thread

 

[ARF]

you're trolling right? rolfl 4k esports titles? esports titles are 1080/1440 24-27 inch screens. google is your friend. the average gamer prefers higher refresh because that's by far a much more powerful metric for games than pixels. Again youre either trolling or you're in the wrong thread

You are trolling. Don't you want to say that users welcome the screen-door effect? Yes or no?

 

[Valantar]

You are trolling. Don't you want to say that users welcome the screen-door effect? Yes or no?

View attachment 263171

And, just to ask, how often are you that close to your monitor?

I'm not saying this isn't a real thing, it just sounds like you're exaggerating quite a bit. 34" 3440x1440 is 109.6ppi, which is fine at regular monitor viewing distances, with the possible exception of someone with exceptionally acute vision. Curved panels can exaggerate this effect slightly above a flat panel, but it really isn't a big deal.

 

[Readlight]

My hd TV also has this size and I don't need expensive video card

 

[Space Lynx]

my guess is this is going to be too expensive to even dream of. if it has no flicker/pwm and it came in at $999, i would consider it over the Alienware OLED though, as my eyes are sensitive to PWM and all OLED has PWM

 

[ARF]

And, just to ask, how often are you that close to your monitor?

I'm not saying this isn't a real thing, it just sounds like you're exaggerating quite a bit. 34" 3440x1440 is 109.6ppi, which is fine at regular monitor viewing distances, with the possible exception of someone with exceptionally acute vision. Curved panels can exaggerate this effect slightly above a flat panel, but it really isn't a big deal.

Don't need to sit that close or to zoom images in order to see the imperfections.

I consider a good PC monitor one with pixel density higher than 185 ppi. So, yeah, 110 is quite low. That is like 1080p on a 21-inch screen.

 

[Valantar]

Don't need to sit that close or to zoom images in order to see the imperfections.

I consider a good PC monitor one with pixel density higher than 185 ppi. So, yeah, 110 is quite low. That is like 1080p on a 21-inch screen.

So what you're saying is that you have a preference for dpi/sensitivity to jaggies and screen door effects that is far, far higher than the average PC user. That's obviously fine, but you then also need to take into account that your preference places you in a rather extreme minority and makes your desires and expectations inapplicable to giving advice to most others or making generally applicable statements about things.

 

[ARF]

So what you're saying is that you have a preference for dpi/sensitivity to jaggies and screen door effects that is far, far higher than the average PC user. That's obviously fine, but you then also need to take into account that your preference places you in a rather extreme minority and makes your desires and expectations inapplicable to giving advice to most others or making generally applicable statements about things.

That's not true. Low grade screens tend to damage your eyes. This is a universal medical advice.

No one in the industry would go so much into overkill to offer 400 ppi smartphones. There is a reason for these retina-class displays. And you basically either are paid by the industry to mislead the customers, or simply lack deeper understanding of the problems.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

That's not true. Low grade screens tend to damage your eyes. This is a universal medical advice.

No one in the industry would go so much into overkill to offer 400 ppi smartphones. There is a reason for these retina-class displays. And you basically either are paid by the industry to mislead the customers, or simply lack deeper understanding of the problems.

Source, please.

 

[ARF]

Source, please.

How Digital Screens Can Affect Your Eyesight (20x20.com)

Does getting monitors with higher resolution better for my eyes? - Quora

does low quality monitor affect your vision - Google Search

 

[Valantar]

How Digital Screens Can Affect Your Eyesight (20x20.com)

Does getting monitors with higher resolution better for my eyes? - Quora

View attachment 263316
View attachment 263315

does low quality monitor affect your vision - Google Search

Staring at literally anything at a close distance for hours at a time will cause eyestrain and is generally bad for your eyes. Now, there is something to higher DPI being better for text rendering, but that only eases eye strain if you spend hours reading text. For gaming and the like it is utterly irrelevant. Brightness has no relation to DPI; point 4 on that image is the most laughably dumb argument I've seen in a while, and 5 is entirely correct - including that a higher resolution won't be materially better. That source you linked showed nothing more than generic "staring at bright stuff for hours is bad for your eyes (and more blue light is worse" stuff. All true, but none of it changes materially with higher resolution.

As I said: you are clearly more sensitive to low resolution screens than most. Accept that and move on. I also see benefits of higher DPI for text - part of why my next monitor will be 2160p - but for gaming, as this monitor is made for? Makes no difference whatsoever.

 

[ARF]

Staring at literally anything at a close distance for hours at a time will cause eyestrain and is generally bad for your eyes. Now, there is something to higher DPI being better for text rendering, but that only eases eye strain if you spend hours reading text. For gaming and the like it is utterly irrelevant. Brightness has no relation to DPI; point 4 on that image is the most laughably dumb argument I've seen in a while, and 5 is entirely correct - including that a higher resolution won't be materially better. That source you linked showed nothing more than generic "staring at bright stuff for hours is bad for your eyes (and more blue light is worse" stuff. All true, but none of it changes materially with higher resolution.

As I said: you are clearly more sensitive to low resolution screens than most. Accept that and move on. I also see benefits of higher DPI for text - part of why my next monitor will be 2160p - but for gaming, as this monitor is made for? Makes no difference whatsoever.

Gaming at 2160p always looks better.
If you think that resolution in gaming doesn't matter, why don't you stay on 480p or 720p?

 

[Valantar]

Gaming at 2160p always looks better.
If you think that resolution in gaming doesn't matter, why don't you stay on 480p or 720p?

Stop putting words in my mouth - I never said resolution doesn't matter. I said that you are clearly more sensitive to high dpi than most people. Those two statements are nowhere near the same. I said this monitor has about 110ppi, which is fine, while you say you need >180ppi - which places you in a small niche. For most people, the perceptible difference in movement in a game between 1080p and 2160p at normal monitor sizes and viewing distances is quite small. It's noticeable, yes, but small. Between 1440p and 2160p is so small as to be borderline imperceptible outside of very detailed scenes or very low movement scenes. Still perceptible, but a tiny difference in real life. If you're not able to act like an adult and respond to what I'm actually saying but need to invent nonsense to respond to instead, please just stop.

 

[ARF]

Stop putting words in my mouth - I never said resolution doesn't matter. I said that you are clearly more sensitive to high dpi than most people. Those two statements are nowhere near the same. I said this monitor has about 110ppi, which is fine, while you say you need >180ppi - which places you in a small niche. For most people, the perceptible difference in movement in a game between 1080p and 2160p at normal monitor sizes and viewing distances is quite small. It's noticeable, yes, but small. Between 1440p and 2160p is so small as to be borderline imperceptible outside of very detailed scenes or very low movement scenes. Still perceptible, but a tiny difference in real life. If you're not able to act like an adult and respond to what I'm actually saying but need to invent nonsense to respond to instead, please just stop.

Sorry but 180 ppi is less than 50% of the most widely used 400ish ppi on smartphones. And their ppi goes up to 700-800 with ease.
How is 180 compared to 700-800? Don't you think it's kind a low?

 

[Valantar]

Sorry but 180 ppi is less than 50% of the most widely used 400ish ppi on smartphones. And their ppi goes up to 700-800 with ease.
How is 180 compared to 700-800? Don't you think it's kind a low?

No, because PPI is Irrelevant without considering viewing distance, and phones are viewed at somewhere between half and ⅓ the distance of pc monitors. Which means that perceived or effective pixel density - pixel density per degree of your field of view - is increased by roughly 2-3x for a monitor when compared to a phone. Meaning that 180ppi for a monitor is roughly equivalent to 360-540ppi for a phone (depending on absolute viewing distance), while 110 is more like 220-330. Which is still perfectly fine, as on top of this, visual clarity in motion is radically different from when looking at static images (and, of course, motion resolution of most displays is drastically lower than their pixel resolution). As I said: higher ppi has notable value for text rendering (but not everyone cares), but for gaming the differences are negligible. And, of course, most high resolution panels have significantly worse pixel response times than lower resolution ones (check any of HWUB's 2160p gaming monitor reviews, for example), meanignt that many lower resolution panels have higher motion resolution than their higher density counterparts. Gaming, and motion in general, makes all of this complicated.

Edit: getting an "angry" response to this is the funniest thing in quite a while. I'm sorry to dispel your illusions, I guess?