Pros can go ultra-wide with Acer’s B346C and B346CK monitors

Variable-refresh-rate tech is all the rage now, but it's reasonable to say not every user is a gamer. Content creation professionals need correct colors above all, and Acer's ultra-wide B346C and B346CK monitors are right up their alley.

Both monitors have the same 34" diagonal size and share more than a couple specs. Both have IPS panels that can cover 100% of the sRGB color space. Viewing angles are appropriately wide at 178 degrees, and content professionals can tweak color to their liking with these screens' onboard 6-axis color adjustment. No curves on these panels—flat is where it's at.

60-Hz maximum response rates and 6-ms response times are in keeping with these displays' content-creation focus. Connectivity comes by way of DisplayPort, an HDMI port with MHL, and a USB 3.0 hub. A height, tilt, and swivel-adjustable stand and a pair of 3W speakers round out the base package.

Where the B346C and B346CK differ, though, is in resolution and bit depth. The B346C has a 2560×1080 resolution and 8-bit color depth, while the B346CK aims higher with its 10-bit, 3440×1440 panel.

Acer backs these monitors with a three-year warranty. The B346C will set you back $600, while the fancier B346CK will sell for $700.

Comments closed
    • btb
    • 5 years ago

    Pros and Acer don’t mix.

    • End User
    • 5 years ago

    The B346C is ultra-short.

    • TruthSerum
    • 5 years ago

    I’ll complain about… that base!

      • chuckula
      • 5 years ago

      Your complaints are all about that base? ’bout that base?

        • Scrotos
        • 5 years ago

        All your base are belong to us.

        • sweatshopking
        • 5 years ago

        nope. also windows 10.

          • TruthSerum
          • 5 years ago

          Very few monitors are running Windows 10, despite even the most optimistic projections…

          “Cortana, book a relaxing weekend for our friend here.. he needs it”

    • gbcrush
    • 5 years ago

    Ultrawide x 2160 or bust! 😀

      • Tumbleweed
      • 5 years ago

      I can’t wait for them to start making 5040×2160 panels.

        • Airmantharp
        • 5 years ago

        And single-GPU cards that can render games at >100FPS on said panels at the highest settings :D.

          • kuraegomon
          • 5 years ago

          Well, just get a 40in standard 4K monitor, and wait a few months for Big Pascal/Whatever AMD’s response is on 16nm. The next GPU generation should get us a heck of lot closer 😀

            • Airmantharp
            • 5 years ago

            I said ‘>100FPS’ to imply that you’d want to exceed the 60Hz that 4k panels are stuck at; certainly we’d need one of the forthcoming video output upgrades to run 16:9 4k or the potential 21:9 5k panels at those refresh rates :).

            • Tumbleweed
            • 5 years ago

            We should probably just move to how the Mac does it – connect the monitor to the machine via Thunderbolt 3, and not worry about bandwidth.

    • DancinJack
    • 5 years ago

    I just can’t get on-board with the ultra wide shenanigans. I have been on 16:10 for a long time, but I could do 16:9 as long as the vertical is >=1200px.

      • demani
      • 5 years ago

      So the upper model hits that vertical res. But I’ve found a lot of pros are happier with that spec (3440×1440) than a pair of 1920×1200 screens (which had been the standard). Things like timelines and Windows all can spread across the screen, and there isn’t that bar up the middle. They just sit down and feel at ease (really, not needing to look left or right and being able to focus dead center makes for a more relaxed position). This looks to be a nice option in that market, especially having 10bit color processing.

      • Airmantharp
      • 5 years ago

      The curved versions alleviate this somewhat, though quality control (at every stage) has thus far been an issue, so we’re not likely to see true professional curved LCD monitors using currently shipping panels. Next-gen may be better, or we may have to wait for OLED.

      • Firestarter
      • 5 years ago

      I like dual monitors for productivity, but my gaming PC is not meant for that. 2 monitors don’t work well in games unless you’re looking to do other stuff (watch streams?) on the second monitor, which I’m not. I’d rather an ultra widescreen monitor to feel that horizontal desk space up, so that I can get some more peripheral vision without having to screw with multi-monitor game configurations

        • weaktoss
        • 5 years ago

        [quote<] to feel that horizontal desk space up[/quote<] I get excited about ultrawides too, but that escalated quickly!

          • Firestarter
          • 5 years ago

          desks need love too!

            • Bobs_Your_Uncle
            • 5 years ago

            Maybe extra attention & care with it comes to cable routing?

        • Airmantharp
        • 5 years ago

        I currently have four monitors on my desk- only one is used for gaming (well, actually playing the games), while the others are used for web pages, Ventrilo or Teamspeak or Curse, and other utilities.

        Having video coming off the CPU is *really* nice for this sort of thing.

          • BIF
          • 5 years ago

          I have 5, but one of them broke.

      • NovusBogus
      • 5 years ago

      I like 16:10 and don’t care for 16:9, but it occurs to me that 21:9 could be thought of as being closer to two oldschool square monitors than one awkwardly-proportioned one. It might work.

        • Cuhulin
        • 5 years ago

        That’s very much how I use mine. I have two 34″ ultrawides, which I often split into left and right screens – produces a nice multi-screen setup with far less mess than I had when I used 3 27’s.

      • ChicagoDave
      • 5 years ago

      Having used this LG 3440×1440 for a year and a half now, I can confidently say I’ll never go back to a dual screen setup. This is simply a better resolution for both productivity and gaming compared to 16:10 or 16:9 IMO. It is literally dual screens without plastic in the middle. I have my email client on the left and internal quoting system on the right. For games that support the resolution (either natively or via a FOV hack), the immersion is simply awesome.

      I’ll still use my TV for 16:9 movie/tv consumption, but any computer with a desktop display is going to be 21:9 from here on out. If you can try it somewhere without buying you really should.

    • Shambles
    • 5 years ago

    178 degree viewing angle? Yeah right. Do you actually believe that or is this just rewording the press release?

      • DancinJack
      • 5 years ago

      That’s what almost all IPS-type screens are. I’d say it’s pretty accurate.

      • DrCR
      • 5 years ago

      Are you suggesting his pockets are lined with [s<]Franklins[/s<] Hamiltons? Edit: In all seriousness, 178 degree viewing angle has been ubiquitous for ps/va for, what, more than a decade. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you're referring to IPS glow.

        • TruthSerum
        • 5 years ago

        I dunno, 178 degrees is pretty freaking hot man, think of the children.
        Kids are going to burn their eyes out on this new IPS stuff.

        Too much angle – they get hooked on the quick buzz of geometric freedom.
        It never lasts. Pretty soon they’re watching TV from the hallway like thugs.

      • Wirko
      • 5 years ago

      Not hard to test this one out so I did. I laid my Nexus 7 on the table and put a 3 mm drill bit under one of its shorter sides, which made it inclined by 1 degree. Then I looked at it with line of sight parallel to the table surface. I could clearly tell whether there are icons on the screen or not, and it was easy to tell a white background from a blue background.
      Your doubt is certainly well-founded as the true viewing angle is probably closer to 179 than 178 degrees.

    • brothergc
    • 5 years ago

    uhhh pass …. no interst in monitors this size

      • TruthSerum
      • 5 years ago

      What are you a giant?

        • drfish
        • 5 years ago

        Hammerhead.

    • kuraegomon
    • 5 years ago

    I can’t see why anyone in the market for this type of monitor [i<]wouldn't[/i<] spend the extra $100 for the B346CK.

      • DPete27
      • 5 years ago

      I’ve said it multiple times, but anything larger than a 24″ 16:9 screen needs to be at least 1440p. To convert that into these ultra-wide 21:9 aspect ratios, anything larger than 30″ should be 1440p.

      I have the ability to look at a 27″ 1440p and a 27″ 1080p monitor side-by-side at work and there’s just no comparison. I haven’t laid eyes on a 4k monitor next to my 27″ 1440p, but my eyes are happy looking at the same pixel density as a 24″ 1080p monitor (slightly higher dpi on my 27″ 1440p monitor actually).

      • Airmantharp
      • 5 years ago

      If the lower-resolution panel supported higher refresh rates, it’d make a lot of sense for gamers; that said, the larger pixels may be of benefit for some.

        • kuraegomon
        • 5 years ago

        The first is unlikely to be the case. As someone north of the big 4-0, I’m more than willing to grant you the second #IFeelBiFocalsComingOnRealSoonNow

          • Airmantharp
          • 5 years ago

          Not even there yet, and have my own, though it doesn’t bother me much ;).

      • EndlessWaves
      • 5 years ago

      Readability.

      Either due to distance (deep desk, wall mounting etc.) or worse than average eyesight. It may not be the mainstream market, but there’s definitely several good reasons for them to exist.

      I just wish they’d stop charging significantly more for larger screens like they do for TVs. Resolution should be the driver of price, size is down to personal circumstances.

      • shank15217
      • 5 years ago

      The B346C is useful for multi-display setups where you may want to display information dashboards. Users would by them in large amounts so even a $100 discount can add up.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This