Acer’s Predator Z1 curved monitors are aggressively priced

Acer's Predator gaming monitor series has been growing rapidly since its inception last year. While the brand has been used primarily for ultra-high-end, does-it-all gaming displays, now Acer is showing off three new monitors in what it is calling the Predator Z1 series. These monitors bear the now-familiar Predator branding: blacked-out frames with red accents. 

The Predator Z1 widescreen displays come in 27", 30", and 31.5" sizes. All three have 1080 pixels of vertical resolution, but the 30" model is 21:9 and boasts a 2560×1080 resolution. The new screens are sharply curved at 1800R, just like Samsung's recent curved displays. Also like those displays, these LCD monitors have vertical-alignment (VA) panels. For those unfamiliar with the technology, VA panels tend to offer better contrast with less backlight bleed versus IPS panels. Acer says the panels in the new Predators have 100% coverage of the sRGB color space, too. 

Despite the 4ms response time, the 30" Predator Z1 ultrawide has a 200Hz refresh rate. Its 27" and 31.5" 16:9 siblings top out at 144Hz. All of the Predator Z1 monitors have support for Nvidia's G-Sync adaptive refresh technology, plus a host of other premium features like USB 3.0 hubs and ambient light sensors. The monitors' feature set is impressive, considering that Acer says prices start at just $599. The Predator Z1s should be available by June.

Comments closed
    • TheMonkeyKing
    • 4 years ago

    And for $150 more you could just get a Hisense 55″ HDTV.

    Which brings me to my question, when do all these merge? Back in the early days (VIC-20 anyone?), a computer signal to the TV required a modulator that passed the signal from the computer DIN to a RCA composite output. Now, the computer monitor is basically a dumb TV but enhanced to give better input response times, yes? (No tuner)

    So with the 2016 Vizio P-series (oops, now just read the 2016 M-series will be tuner free too), this is basically the same as 27 and 31.5 Predators?

      • agentbb007
      • 4 years ago

      Anytime I’ve hooked a computer up to a TV the picture always looks bad even with my 1080p LCD TV it still doesn’t look good, text is hard to read and things just don’t look good. I think 1080p might not be high resolution enough for such large screens.
      I don’t think any HDTV’s have G-SYNC which is huge IMO because tearing drives me crazy.
      Another negative about TV’s is the low refresh rate, display lag/response time. I play a lot of FPS so like fast screens.

        • travbrad
        • 4 years ago

        Yep TVs tend to have pretty poor response times/input lag which is my biggest problem for gaming on them. I tried playing NES/SNES emulators on my TV and was thinking “this seems a lot harder than I remember” so I tried some newer games and had a similar reaction. Turns out it was all because of the bad response times on them.

        I actually measured have measured the difference by cloning the monitors/TVs with a stopwatch on them and using a slow-motion camera. One of my HDTVs is 100ms behind my 144hz “gaming” monitor and the other one is 66ms behind the 144hz monitor. My e-IPS monitor is 33ms behind it.

    • floodo1
    • 4 years ago

    Will be interesting to see what curvature ends up being ‘the best’. The close to 4000R stuff that has been the standard was already quite nice, so I wonder if <2000R will feel too curved, or if it will be just right?

    Hopefully this Z1 series uses panels that perform better than the Z35 which had serious issues.

      • Chrispy_
      • 4 years ago

      Surely the best immersion will be when the R-value matches your viewing distance – so R800 or something?

    • odizzido
    • 4 years ago

    I’ve tried out a VA panel before…..I found that even though the monitor was small the sides were starting to shift when looking at it head on. Seemed like HA would be much better since it’s all widescreen. Maybe it was just a bad screen though who knows I’ve only tried one.

    • south side sammy
    • 4 years ago

    $600 is a lot of money for a 27″ monitor. $600 is a lot for a 32″ monitor, especially 1080.

    • DPete27
    • 4 years ago

    Good to see they ditched the black and orange color scheme. Red is much more pleasing to my eyes.

    • DPete27
    • 4 years ago

    Good to see they ditched the black and orange color scheme. Red is much more pleasing to my eyes.

    • Noigel
    • 4 years ago

    Did I miss the memo about VA panels no longer having horrible input lag? How long have VA panels been the premium panels for gaming monitors?! I’ve even stayed away from IPS panels for years because of fear of input lag…

      • Voldenuit
      • 4 years ago

      Benq has been making good *VA gaming panels for a few years now, iirc. Not to be confused with their AHVA panels, which, despite the terminology, are closer to IPS, but which are also still good.

      • Airmantharp
      • 4 years ago

      Depends on the *VA panels used; Samsung’s variety always needed excessive precharging and thus buffering and incurred input lag as a result, but that was their specific S-PVA technology.

      IPS panels actually didn’t have this problem, so much as they were usually used in monitors that had nice scaler and OSD hardware which incurred an input lag penalty. If you got a display without those scalers, you didn’t have that problem- as a personal example, my HP ZR30W 1600p IPS has no OSD or scaler capability and thus has no processing-based input lag, while the Dell U3011 using the same panel had all kinds of wizardry pertinent to professional use that did incur an input lag penalty.

      • Spunjji
      • 4 years ago

      One of Eizo’s Foris displays made excellent use of a 120Hz VA panel (with a 240Hz blanking feature that cuts blurring but cripples brightness). No real input lag to speak of there 🙂

    • Srsly_Bro
    • 4 years ago

    Just in time for the Pascal launch!

    Edit: I didn’t read the post will enough. If seems all of these will have 1080 vertical lines of resolution. I had hoped in my mind that Acer wouldn’t do such a thing.

      • Billstevens
      • 4 years ago

      You wont need Pascal to run any games at max settings at 2560x1080p, its likely to be major overkill.

        • Srsly_Bro
        • 4 years ago

        Post changed. Thanks!

      • DPete27
      • 4 years ago

      Yeah, does Acer know something we don’t about Pascal? This sure doesn’t bode well for Pascal supporting VESA Adaptive Sync.

        • Srsly_Bro
        • 4 years ago

        Ignore that post.

          • DPete27
          • 4 years ago

          Just sayin’, why release a new lineup of GSync monitors 1 month before Pascal launch if Nvidia will be implementing VESA Adaptive Sync support?

          Obviously, Nvidia will need to also support GSync for the current batch of proprietary misfit monitors out there, but once they start supporting “FreeSync” nobody in their right mind would buy a GSync monitor. Why vendor lock yourself if you don’t have to?

    • DancinJack
    • 4 years ago

    [quote<]but the 30" model is 21:9 and boasts a 2560x1080 [/quote<] lol so awful

      • sotti
      • 4 years ago

      It’s not as bad as you think.

      A 30″ 21×9 is roughly the same vertical height as a 24″ display, so it’s still in the standard 96dpi range.

        • Srsly_Bro
        • 4 years ago

        And nonetheless, awful.

          • Billstevens
          • 4 years ago

          I would have to agree, if you are looking at a 1080p ultrawide in a 30” or sub format it is probably not worth it. In that case I would stick with a standard 27”.

          Ultrawide is still annoying because you have to do a lot of hacking to get most games to use it, and sometimes its not possible. When its not possible you want at least the 34” size so that the existence of the side black bars isn’t so annoying.

          Even the 34” ultrawide at 1440p is slightly shorter than a standard 27” 16:9, but it is close enough to feel like you aren’t giving up too much size when 21:9 isn’t possible.

          • EndlessWaves
          • 4 years ago

          Calling any given DPI awful is just silly. It depends on your viewing distance. What’s too low and grainy on one person’s desk is just right on another, and just right for the former would be squint inducingly tiny for the latter.

          I’m using 1920×1200@24″ and I find that too small, I have to waste desk space by putting it in the middle instead of at the back. I’ll be buying a much lower DPI monitor next time around.

            • Srsly_Bro
            • 4 years ago

            I have a 1920×1200 as my main screen and 1920×1080 that replaced a failed 1920×1200. I much prefer the extra vertical lines and would prefer 1440p. All were/are 24″ panels.

      • Srsly_Bro
      • 4 years ago

      I would attach this sticker to the monitor so it’s appropriately labeled.

      [url<]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Yuk[/url<]

      • DPete27
      • 4 years ago

      The 30″ 21:9 model is the only one that’s NOT awful. I’d steer clear of the 27″ and 31.5″ 1920×1080 models.

      • Chrispy_
      • 4 years ago

      Currently writing this on a 55″ 1080p screen.

      Complaining about dpi is stupid; If you have a big desk or sit far away from your screen you won’t want high DPI. Until Windows, everthing on the internet, and all games play nice with DPI scaling, there will still be a lot of mileage in having a sensible dpi monitor and Windows scaling set to 100%

      My eyesight’s pretty good (I can use 4K on a laptop without scaling if I must) but I still find that physical size has a lot to play in the immersiveness of games. These are gaming screens, after all.

      Not everyone wants to buy a 980Ti SLI setup necessary to drive games at 3440×1440 with framerates to justify the 144Hz. 1080p@144Hz? Hell a GTX970 or 390 can do that for a quarter the price.

        • Airmantharp
        • 4 years ago

        I’m a 1600p user, but 2560×1080 VA 200Hz with G-Sync?

        I’m actually interested. Not a lot interested, mind you, but enough to post this :D.

        • f0d
        • 4 years ago

        [quote<]Not everyone wants to buy a 980Ti SLI setup necessary to drive games at 3440x1440 with framerates to justify the 144Hz. 1080p@144Hz? Hell a GTX970 or 390 can do that for a quarter the price.[/quote<] ^this - oh so much of this the price for really high res displays isnt the display itself its constantly buying new high end video cards to be able to do these resolutions at decent (as in always above 60) framerates sure that gtx 980ti is enough now but future games will require more gpu grunt which means your next gpu purchase will have to be the ultra high end $1000 gpu again i have a 2560x1080 34" and its fantastic i have zero complaints about it and its so easy to drive with a 290 that i get 75fps (75hz refresh) all day every day no dips under its max refresh

          • Spunjji
          • 4 years ago

          How long do you intend to keep the monitor for, though, and for how long do you think SLI is going to be necessary to drive those resolutions?

          I speak from my own personal position of bias, though. I greatly prefer the density of a 24″ 4K panel running at 150% scaling in Windows. Looks great in games – I have a single 970 which covers me for 1440p in GTA V and 4K in Fallout 4 and KSP.

            • f0d
            • 4 years ago

            [quote<]How long do you intend to keep the monitor for, though[/quote<] until it breaks [quote<]how long do you think SLI is going to be necessary to drive those resolutions?[/quote<] the highest end card/cards will always be needed due to game requirements always getting higher here is some benchmarks for a game you mentioned GTA V [url<]http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gta_v_pc_graphics_performance_review,6.html[/url<] at 1440p there is an average framerate of around 55fps for a 970 which means there will be a fair few frames under that 55fps yet you look at the 1080p framerates [url<]http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gta_v_pc_graphics_performance_review,5.html[/url<] a 970 is getting an average of 79fps which is a much better experience my point is if you have a look at the cards that have acceptable framerates at very high resolutions (1440p+) they are all very expensive and as we all know game requirements keep going up over time a 5870 was plenty for 1080p and even some 1440p games when it was released but since then game requirements have gone up drastically and that 5870 now wouldnt be able to play anything at 1080p or maybe even 720p with acceptable framerates because game requirement are always going higher so i guess my main point is when you buy a screen that needs the highest end card/cards for acceptable framerate you will ALWAYS need the highest end card/cards for acceptable framerates and that alone makes a very high resolution display cost more than just the price of the monitor over time as you will be buying the equal of a 980ti/furyx every few years just to be able to play those latest games another thing to consider that doesnt actually ever seem to get mentioned much is the distance you are away from your screen makes a big effect on the pixel acuity and the distance you are from your screen in regards to the screens ppi is called pixels per degree (ppd) the pixels per degree for a 2560X1080 monitor at 80cm (around 31 inches) is 48.4 ppd to achieve 48.4ppd on a 3440x1440 monitor you will have to sit at 55.8cm (about 22 inches) so sitting just under 25cm (about 9.5 inches) further away from a 2560x1080 screen compared to a 3440x1440 screen gets you the same pixel acuity at that measured distance i dont know about you but my head position in regards to my screen is never the same, sometimes im sitting back a few centimeters and other times in leaning forward a few centimeters depending on the game i play or what i am doing to me 25cm (9.5 inches) difference for the same pixel acuity isnt really much 10 inches further from my screen to be able to only spend $200 or $300 on a graphics card compared to almost $1000 for a graphics card to be able to sit 10 inches closer for the same quality is a no brainer to me next time you want to know how a person with a 1080p screen sees a game just lean forward 10 inches - its pretty much the same thing

            • Chrispy_
            • 4 years ago

            [quote<]Looks great in games - I have a single 970 which covers me for 1440p in GTA V[/quote<] Clearly your idea of "looks great" is different to the majority. A majority of people think that a TFT panel looks like ass when it's not running at native resolution, and you're not running at the native resolution.

      • floodo1
      • 4 years ago

      That’s actually about perfect for 1080p ultra-wide, which is a really nice setup for people that game but don’t have a top of the line video card to push 1440p ultra-wide (double the pixels!)

    • not@home
    • 4 years ago

    I like my women curvy and my monitors straight.

    • shank15217
    • 4 years ago

    No freesync, no thanks

      • Chrispy_
      • 4 years ago

      There’ll be a freesync model using each of these panels. They’re made by AUO so you’ll get them in Benq, AOC and of course Acer, since it doesn’t take long to google what AUO stands for…

    • End User
    • 4 years ago

    1080 vertical! Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo

      • ImSpartacus
      • 4 years ago

      Yeah, what’s the point?

      Go 3840×1440 or go home.

      Also, where’s that freesync that was supposed to be on meant every new monitor?

        • K-L-Waster
        • 4 years ago

        Guess there aren’t enough people with Freesync compatible video cards to make that market attractive.

          • Sargent Duck
          • 4 years ago

          Anybody using a DP 1.2 or newer (I believe it’s 1.2) has a Freesync compatible video card…

          • ImSpartacus
          • 4 years ago

          No doubt, but I thought freesync was supposed to be super easy to implement, almost to the point of being on effectively every new monitor after a while.

          It seemed too good to be true and I feel that’s the case.

        • Spunjji
        • 4 years ago

        Oh, you mean like this stuff?
        [url<]https://www.overclockers.co.uk/monitors/by-type/g-sync-and-freesync[/url<] Where there are ~50% more Freesync monitors than G-Sync... 😐

      • agentbb007
      • 4 years ago

      Agree, been @ 2560×1440 so long anything less would feel low rez.

      • iBend
      • 4 years ago

      right.. just when I think some manufacturer finally release 30″ 21:9 curved screen, with 100% sRGB color space at reasonable price…
      and then that 1080… lol

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This